British Judge Slaps Down Religious Freedom Claim As ''Irrational''

[DeSwiss]

Gary McFarlane: judge's assault on 'irrational' religious freedom claims in sex therapist case
A senior judge has launched a dramatic assault on religious faith, dismissing it as “subjective” with no basis in fact.

The Telegraph
By John Bingham
Published: 6:30AM BST 30 Apr 2010


Gary McFarlane, the Christian counsellor who refused sex therapy to
homosexuals Photo: PA

Lord Justice Laws condemned any attempt to protect believers who take a stand on matters of conscience under the law as “irrational” and “capricious”. In comments likely to set the church on a collision course with the courts, he claimed that doing so could set Britain on the road to a “theocracy”, or religious rule. His comments came as he dismissed a legal challenge by a Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after refusing to offer sex therapy sessions to homosexual couples because it was against his beliefs. Gary McFarlane, 48, challenged his dismissal at the Court of Appeal, arguing that forcing him to go against what he sees as the Bible’s teaching represented religious discrimination.

He was supported in his case by a highly unusual direct intervention Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote to the judge warning of a tide of discrimination against Christians that threatened “civil unrest”. Lord Carey called for the Lord Chief Justice to set up a separate panel of five judges with “proven sensitivity” to religious feelings to hear the appeal and other similar cases in the future. It follows a string of case, including that of a registrar who refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies, which pointed to a growing “religious bar” to Christians in many professions, he said.

But Lord Justice Laws said Lord Carey’s views were “misplaced” was “mistaken”. Last night there were warnings that the judgment could enshrine the “persecution” of Christians in modern Britain and sideline religion in public life. Lord Justice Laws ruled that while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves had no standing under the law. “In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence,” he told the court.

While acknowledging the profound influence of Judeo-Christian traditions over many centuries, he insisted that no religious belief itself could be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture. The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified,” he said. “It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.” He added: “If they did … our constitution would be on the road to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7652358/Gary-McFarlane-judges-assault-on-irrational-religious-freedom-claims-in-sex-therapist-case.html">MORE

DeSwiss


http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox





"Extreme orthodoxy betrays by its very frenzy that the poison of skepticism has entered the soul of the church; for men insist most vehemently
upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt." ~ Reinhold Niebuhr

on edit: spelling

[Deep13]

1. Outstanding! Three cheers for the aptly named Lord Justice Law.

"...separate panel of five judges with “proven sensitivity” to religious feelings..."

In other words a court that was already biased in favor of the plaintiff.

[DeSwiss]

5. at least 3 out of the 5.....

[dmallind]

2. Good. This is NOT discrimination

Deciding what parts of the job you applied for and accepted you deign worthy of your delicate sensibilities IS discrimination.

There's not teh first thing inthis of any possible harm to Christians who do their jobs. None of them are slaves, and none were forced into these duties. If I have a personal unwillingness to perform X, be that religious or simply personal in origin, then I simply do not choose to seek or take a job that contains the duty X. It's not discrimination against me that the job contains X. It's discrimination (in either the neutral or pejorative sense) on my part that I am unwilling to do it, and so should refuse the job.

[DeSwiss]

6. Agreed.

- Arrogant too, isn't it?

[RandomThoughts]

3. He should have agreed to only council them on issues of fact.

Then counseled them only on things that are proven and known avoiding any other issues. Which would be useless, since 99% of any issues would probably be feeling not fact.

However he still should have been very kind to them, but should not have to agree that he agrees with there choice to marry, only that it is there choice.



Although there is a 'science' religion that puts much into psychology, and calls it fact, yet when talking about the mind and mind processing, it is subjective.



And to this comment
“It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

He can claim that, but only because his basic postulations of reality builds his thoughts on the issues. I would like him to prove he exist without using some subjective ideas on things like perception of events through senses, and the thought that he thinks.

[DeSwiss]

7. Cogito ergo sum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum">

[RandomThoughts]

9. He has to prove he thinks that thought. so it is subjective

I can think of many concepts that would say it is not his thoughts. But they are all despair based, so not best to explain them. They are no free will concepts.

However I do believe he has thought, that is part of my beliefs.

[DeSwiss]

10. He proves it -- by thinking it.

You have no basis for forming your own question, outside the act of cognition, first. The very ability to raise a question of one's existence is all the proof of that existence which is required.

This is rational.

This is logical.

This is objective.

This is what the judge is talking about.

[RandomThoughts]

21. The only way I could make the argument of does he think.

would be to argue the points that I do not think are best to argue, because I agree that I think he thinks, but disagree with his conclusion. So probably best to just to leave it at that. It is most likely sometime in my past I made the same argument he did, so there is that also.



I think he has a different set of life experiences that form his beliefs on belief, from my experiences I disagree with them.

But I can explain my view on the OP better.

I do agree with separation of Church and state, because belief is faith, and state works by laws with consequence of punishment. And faith can not be coercion. But I also think a person should not be forced to do something against there beliefs.

Let me put it this way, that article is right in the middle of the concept, can a person have beliefs if those beliefs are deemed by society to not be best for society. And risk removing any religious belief that is not in the majority.

It is a tough question, so again I think the answer would be for him to council them, and from his view treat them nicely, but hold to his beliefs, and basically not be a help to their problem, since he would not be able to council them effectively. So I sort of agree he should council them, just while still maintaining his beliefs, but when explaining them, also stating that he does not think he should make people believe the same thing, only that he is limited in helping them by his beliefs. If he believes they are worse people, then I would think he could get some counseling himself on if it is his belief, or his bias, he would have to explain in his belief system why he thinks that way. And then you are back to the actual decision by the judge, capricious and selective use of facts to form beliefs on society.


It is actually the same argument used to not allow any religious action that is deemed not good for society by a system of social rule. And it is a grey area that is really tough, because while rights have to be protected, people should be able to express their beliefs, but sometimes a set of beliefs can have a person infringe rights of another person.

It is a tough question because it is in the grey area of when can a social, or economic governance say that religion goes to far and dictate what is correct to believe.

Some other examples in the same category.
Amish not being part of draft
Should children be protected from parents that do not believe in medicine.
Should women in public wear a veil.
Should people be allowed to have more then one wife or husband.


But once you start making declarations of what religious beliefs go to far, you also have to be careful you do not start to set society standards based on just the belief of most people. Or suddenly any of the following could happen.

Having a belief itself could be deemed to lead to ideas and not allowed.
One belief could be said to be correct making all other wrong, including the belief in science.
The idea that since it is best for society to believe in so and so religious view, or scientific view, everyone has to believe it. And that is how religions get persecuted over history, and how groups get forced to be part of a religion in parts of history.

That is the fine line and slippery slope that has the religious right scared.

They see that post in the OP, and think all religious views will be cast aside, and that judges argument defends their fear of slippery slope of removal or outlaw of religion. His argument should be, although we can not all know what is right or wrong for everyone in the fullness of beliefs, for a person to use his belief to deny another care or help in an area he cares for people, would be wrong based on most of the beliefs of that faith, then argue not against all religion, but that his exact point on that question can be supported by the tenants of both religion and non religious society. Instead his argument cast a wide net and claims all religion can be targeted for any reason.

Then the next argument, can he be fired by state or a company for being not very good at counseling a person in that area that is gay. At some point his belief would make him not a great fit for that counselling, so from that an admission that his faith makes him unsuited for that particular role, without denying his faith, or insulting the gay couple, would seem to be best. Then the state would have to decide if his beliefs is acceptable to exclude him from that work, not because his beliefs, but because his beliefs make him not that good at that job. But with respect for beliefs, as the judge has respect for those that believe differently.

But it is a real tough question and goes right to the grey area of right to believe, and protection of society.

[darkstar3]

31. Do we allow Rastas to smoke ganja?

Do we allow Christian Scientists to let their children die rather than seek the help of a medical professional?

There is a tradition in the US of preventing certain religious practices when there is evidence that said practice can be harmful. I await the day when this tradition is applied more evenly and includes medical practitioners, especially pharmacists.

[DeSwiss]

39. "But I also think a person should not be forced to do something against there (sic) beliefs."

Then find another job.

PERIOD.

If one chooses to allow their so-called "religious faith" to dictate their life choices, then fine. It's their life, they can waste it as they see fit. But they have NO RIGHT to allow those illogical beliefs to infect the lives of others.

So "find another job" is the answer. See?, simple.

Science, logic and objectivity cannot allow itself to be dragged down into the muddle of nonsensical thinking where lies the corpse of religion. All of these doctors, pharmacists, etc., who want to force science, logic and objectivity to be amenable to changes in order to meet their religious demands, well I got just two words for 'em: FUCK 'EM. Science, logic and objectivity does not belong to them, nor does it belong within the confines of religion. So its adherents can lay no claim to any of them. Science, logic and objectivity are to be taken whole or not at all.

I realize how religionists can expect, long for and desire everyone else to do as they must do daily in their failed attempt at maintaining their balance between sanity and religion. They must live their lives daily LYING TO THEMSELVES and trying to ignore all those illogical religious ideas when they come into conflict with the reality of everyday life. Square peg, meet round hole for them is an ALWAYS affair. And which is why religionists are such terrible hypocrites, and are never to be trusted. Never. As with the former archbishop above who blatantly suggests that a jury of "sensitive judges" be rigged in order to adjudicate this matter (in favor of religion is what he didn't say).

So the choice is clear and simple here: If one cannot abide by the rules of the scientific method then they're not scientific, they're not logical, nor are they objective. And therefore they have no business being involved in any profession or job where such an understanding is prerequisite.

Religion is like a failed actor who refuses to leave the stage -- demanding just one more chance to show how important and meaningful it can be. Even after we've heard all of its lines and realize that they make no damned sense. And even after we've come to the realization that the character of religion has no relation to the main plot of life. Religion is for people who are afraid of dying and yet are hateful of living. Religion is for people unwilling or too fucking lazy to learn the truth.

And as for Cogito ergo sum, this concept relates to "I" and only "I". It doesn't matter what anyone else "thinks." Nor what they might think about what another person thinks. Because in the end we can only "prove" reality to ourselves.

- Which is the only place where the idea even matters......

[TrogL]

4. Lemme get this straight

(full disclosure, I'm Anglican)

The former head of the Anglican Church (which tends to be a bit left of centre) feels there is discrimination against Christians because they discriminate (eg. by refusing services to LGBT people).

:crazy:

[DeSwiss]

8. Yeah, and how come they don't claim a religious right to enforce this one???

- It's in the bible too, you know.......

[BrklynLiberal]

11. The RWingers here would have that judge tarred and feathered before he could bang his gavel.

[DeSwiss]

13. You betcha!

[BrklynLiberal]

15. Wow! What a scary poster that is...

[Wednesdays]

12. Oh, great. The bible-thumpers will be in a froth over this.

"Mr McFarlane said that his treatment was “without a doubt” an example of Christians being persecuted in modern Britain."

They thrive on the "persecution" stuff. :puke:

[DeSwiss]

16. Religions exist within society.....

...at the behest of, and with the consent and protection of the citizens of the state. Religions have no "inherent right of existence" within society. For without the certain foundation of civil rights for individuals upon which the state is built; then there can be no guarantee of the freedom of religion. It is the citizen's of the state, which constitutes the state. Therefore their rights are ALWAYS paramount. As in: "we hold these truths to be self-evident....."

Religions like to believe that their god is paramount -- and therefore so too are their institutions. However, beyond having been granted the right to exist from the state to begin with, they are not likewise empowered to determine "how" they will be allowed to exist among us. For example, they must respect our laws -- this is not negotiable. Because religions must seek the security of its existence by virtue of the state's guarantee of protection within its borders. Therefore religion cannot dictate the terms of how they might function within a society they did not create.

If we can dictate standards of care and licensing for doctors, if we can impose rules on how one may drive their car upon public roads, then certainly we can dictate how institutions purporting to represent invisible deities will be allowed to impose those illogical ideas within the society at-large. And within which we have provided them, a haven.

In other words: Religion needs to learn its place.


- The right to freedom of religion does not, should not and cannot trump the civil rights of individuals......

[humblebum]

17. You say religion has no "inherent right of existence" .

Then what is separation of church and state all about? In the US, the government has NO say as to whether or not religion can exist - "or prohibit the free exercise therof". Seems pretty clear to me. Freedom of conscience - religious or not, is recognize in our constitution as well as in the Declaration of Human Rights. However, being a part of a religion doesn't exempt a citizen from their responsibilities as citizens.

[humblebum]

14. Then it is also a reality that nothing can any longer be based on matters of conscience.

It is generally recognized in the US that if a counselor has a conflict of interest or conscience, that they refer a client to another counselor. That is the wise decision because it benefits both parties. However if the counselor is telling the client that their lifestyle or beliefs are wrong or bad, or generally condemning the client - then said counselor has violated the client's rights.

[Deep13]

22. A counselor has to do his or her job and not impose his irrational prejudices on his clients.

The problem with this whole matter-of-conscience thing is that an innocent third party (the client, patient, pharmacy customer etc.) bears the burden of the professional's conscience even if she does not agree with with the professional's value judgments. A pharmacist may feel self-rightous about denying a customer the morning after pill, but it is the customer who is being deprived of a much-needed medicine. Besides, it is not enough for a psychologist (for example) to personally believe that homosexuality is immoral. That professional is supposed to be basing his or her advice on the science of psychology and not on guesses based on bronze age mythology.

[humblebum]

25. A good counselor will, and is trained to, excuse themselves if

they realize that they are not able to properly address a client's needs. Most will state that fact up front in the informed consent phase. Professional counselors are not duplicates of each other. The ethically correct thing for the counselor to do in such an event is to consult with another counselor with more experience in that certain area as to how best to proceed, take concerns to a supervising counselor, or for the counselor to excuse themselves and refer the client elsewhere. It is very unprofessional to just leave a client without someone to help them.

[struggle4progress]

18. Hmm. Psychiatric or psychological counseling work is a strange sort

of work; for example, the tasks do not resemble in any way those in objective work, like plumbing or automotive repair. In psychiatric or psychological counseling work, there will not be a simple objective list of well-defined tasks for the worker to perform. It is essential to form a therapeutic relationship between the client and the psychiatric or psychological counseling worker; and since neither the client nor the worker can escape from their own particular and limited perspectives, the therapy must always begin with an an exploration of the question Can you and I form the necessary therapeutic relationship, given our own personalities and limitations? It is essential for the psychiatric or psychological counseling worker, as a professional, to recognize that there will always be clients with whom that psychiatric or psychological counseling worker cannot form an effective therapeutic relationship; even if it is sometimes be difficult for the psychiatric or psychological counseling worker to recognize such limitations, it is important that the worker make the effort to recognize such limitations. In some cases, the most responsible and professional attitude of the psychiatric or psychological counseling worker might be, This is who I am; that is who the client is; in my best judgment, no effective therapeutic relationship is possible here

I have no opinion on the question of whether Mr McFarlane was rightly or wrongly sacked. It is certainly possible for someone to adhere to so many strong and extensive beliefs, that it becomes almost impossible for them to function as a psychiatric or psychological counseling worker. On the other hand, merely holding strong and extensive beliefs does not by itself prevent someone from doing effective psychiatric or psychological counseling work with some clients, even if it prevents that person from doing effective psychiatric or psychological counseling work with certain other clients.

[darkstar3]

19. Thank you, Professor Von Gluteal,

for showing all of us just how easy it is for one to talk out of their own ass.

What you have above is nothing more or less than the ramblings of a pop psychologist. the tasks do not resemble in any way those in objective work...are you fucking SERIOUS? Have you ever heard of something called the DSM? Crack it sometime and find within its pages both qualitative and quantitative criteria designed to help the practitioner properly diagnose the complaints of the patient in an objective manner. Hell, half the reason that psychologists go to school for so long is because they must be trained to carefully and objectively observe and document patient behaviors in order to diagnose them properly. "Why is this so important?" Because "knowing is half the battle." Once you successfully and objectively diagnose the patient, you can then begin to actually help them.

It saddens me every time people throw out the old canard of "everything is subjective." It lets me know that pseudoscientific babble is taking over where actual scientific knowledge should be the norm.

[struggle4progress]

20. DSM, of course, is used to describe individual psychological disorders and therefore

may be completely irrelevant for most counseling on sexual relationship problems, as these can affect individuals without diagnosable psychological pathology. So it is unclear why you want to wave DSM in the air

My prior post concerned the importance of the therapeutic relationship. You can easily find many ethical statements from professional organizations indicating clearly that the relationship should not be continued unless of benefit to the client, and it is not uncommon in those professions to spend the first session or two exploring whether the particular professional and client can expect a productive relationship. If there are particular reasons the professional and client cannot expect a productive relationship, then the client should seek or be referred to another professional, as is made clear by a number of ethical guidelines from various professional organizations

[darkstar3]

27. Your prior post was also an attempt

to strip away the scientific and objective nature of psychology in order to make it seem perfectly acceptable for a therapist to let their own subjective and religious hangups get in the way of doing their job.

And what you obviously refuse to see since you continue to harp on this "relationship" idea is that therapists of all stripes are absolutely required during their training to put aside their own subjective proclivities. It's part and parcel of being a therapist to attain "professional distance and objectivity" with all of one's patients. That was my point about the DSM. Psychology is a field about objective observance of human behavior, not about cultivating relationships with every person who wants your advice. The "therapeutic relationship" that you speak of is not remotely about determining whether the patient's personality is compatible with the practitioner's, but rather about determining whether the patient and practitioner can establish a bond of trust. It is the professionalism and objectivity of the practitioner that allows this bond to be established, not compatible views on social minutiae.

[ironbark]

33. Mechanistic materialism goes mad.

In 14# struggle4progress identifies the core of the ‘therapeutic relationship’… the ability to establish a rapport between counsellor and client-
“It is essential to form a therapeutic relationship between the client and the psychiatric or psychological counseling worker; and since neither the client nor the worker can escape from their own particular and limited perspectives, the therapy must always begin with an an exploration of the question Can you and I form the necessary therapeutic relationship, given our own personalities and limitations?”

This is the cornerstone of all ‘talking therapies’…if trust, rapport, comfort cannot be established between client/counsellor then all the tools of the trade are useless.

The response to this (darkstar3, 19#) is to assert- “talking out of [] ass.”, “ramblings of a pop psychologist”, “pseudoscientific babble”…which is a weird way to respond to such a simple/obvious truth.

When struggle4progress identifies that in counselling/therapy -
“the tasks do not resemble in any way those in objective work...”

Darkstar3 goes ballistic-
“are you fucking SERIOUS? Have you ever heard of something called the DSM?”

Yea, all those involved in counselling/talking therapy roles are familiar with the DSM.
The DSM is that tome that counsellors (such as the one in question in OP) would have NO USE FOR because he is NOT IN THE DIAGNOSIS BUISNESS!

As for psychologists using the DSM- “within its pages both qualitative and quantitative criteria designed to help the practitioner properly diagnose the complaints of the patient in an objective manner…[]… Once you successfully and objectively diagnose the patient, you can then begin to actually help them.”

NONE OF THAT can happen if the practitioner/client cannot establish a therapeutic relationship….which was struggle4progress’s original/core point!
Once more Darkstar3 has the cart before the horse and is going off like the 4th July over processes/principles he/she does not understand.

Then goes on to accuse struggle4progress of attempting to-“strip away the scientific and objective nature of psychology…”

!!!??? What the fuck? The guys a ‘Relationship Counsellor’!!! His training/toolbox would be lucky to contain Active and Reflective Listening and Basic Counselling skills…and this has something to do with “scientific and objective nature of psychology”???

The last time it was the therapeutic nature of community as surrogate family that was dismissed out of hand by Darkstar as “horse shit”. Now it’s the fundamental of client/therapist developing a therapeutic relationship being deemed ““talking out of [] ass.”, “ramblings of a pop psychologist”, “pseudoscientific babble”…

It’s a good thing that human beings are machines that can be repaired with such scientific precision and don’t require community, belonging, relationship or rapport.

Darkstar3-
“And what you obviously refuse to see since you continue to harp on this "relationship" idea is that therapists of all stripes are absolutely required during their training to put aside their own subjective proclivities. It's part and parcel of being a therapist to attain "professional distance and objectivity" with all of one's patients.”

Absolute unmitigated bullshit. You are confusing and conflating the Clinical Professionalism of the Psychologist/Psychiatrist with “therapists of all stripes”- Relationship Counsellors, Drug&Alcahol Counsellors, Youth Counsellors etc.
While the general principles of "professional distance and objectivity" apply to the broad Counselling profession their training, roles, methods and objectives are far far more founded “on this "relationship" idea” than anything else.
In fact there is constant tension, talk and testing of Professional Boundaries, subjective experience, self revelation and community overlap within the Counselling/Welfare realm.

But being someone who considers the Fire Brigade to be a key ‘protector’ against child abuse you would know all about the distinctions between professional roles.
;-)

[darkstar3]

34. Oh, the sod has spoken!

The complete misconstruing of our past arguments aside, the first time psychology/psychiatry and general "therapy" were conflated in this subthread was by S4P at the very beginning. My objection and ridicule of his post is based in the fact that he went off about psychology when clearly he wasn't talking about anything related to the actual practice and study of psychology or psychiatry.

And now here you are, bleating piteously about how awful I am to people you happen to agree with...tell me, Mr. Social Worker, do you deny that training is required in order to become a therapist? Do you deny that professional distance and objectivity are required of all counselors, sex- or otherwise?

ETA: Just by the way, I thought you might be interested to read up on the company you keep with such arguments about how church is required for community and charity. Happy reading...

[ironbark]

35. Hmmm…And what a pity you can not/will not respond to the core points/questions.

“The complete misconstruing of our past arguments aside”

1/ Your prior expressed opinions on related issues are germane to this one.
2/ You cannot/will not deny referring to the principle 'surrogate community' as “horseshit”
3/ You cannot/will not deny referring the Fire Brigade as a primary 'protector' re child abuse.

All of your prior ventures into the realm of social work/social welfare display complete ignorance of and distain for the role of ‘relationship’ and ‘community’.

“psychology/psychiatry and general "therapy" were conflated in this subthread was by S4P”

And rightly so in his identification of the common features- not “objective work, like plumbing or automotive repair” and in the identification of the centrality of establishing a “therapeutic relationship”.
That does not confuse or conflate the role of Psychiatrist/Psychologist with that of Therapist/Counsellor nor pretend that the latter would be reaching for the DSM.

“My objection and ridicule of his post is based in the fact that he went off about psychology…”

Rubbish. He did not go “off about psychology” and your ridiculous “ridicule” was flung at his
“harping on this "relationship" idea”. You have not and will not return to explain how >any< insight might be gained regarding the client without first establishing this silly "relationship" idea”.

“he wasn't talking about anything related to the actual practice and study of psychology or psychiatry.”

Yea? And any minute now your going to actually answer a prior point question and tell us how the fuck a psychologist is going to gain insight from a client and reach for his diagnostic DSM WITHOUT HAVING FIRST ESTABLISHED A > “therapeutic relationship” <….????

We don’t need psychs or shriks to know that your not going to answer pertinent questions…we only need the record of the board.

Meanwhile basic 'Active Listening' plays out and your points/questions get answered directly-

“ tell me, Mr. Social Worker, do you deny that training is required in order to become a therapist?

The legislation governing training/practice of ‘Therapy’ or ’Counselling’ often alters from State to State depending on the nature of therapy/counselling being conducted. In many instances there is little or no training involved beyond ‘In House’ courses and ‘on the job’ training. If you think such training is universal, comprehensive or in depth you are, yet again, sadly mistaken.

“Do you deny that professional distance and objectivity are required of all counselors, sex- or otherwise?”

Yes. I deny it as a requirement of “all counsellors”. There are some fields of counselling in which ridged professional boundaries and objectivity are essential and others in which such boundaries are a counter productive bane. Youth Counselling/Youth Work is an example of the latter in which a much greater degree of flexibility is required and the parameters of the ‘therapeutic relationship’ blurred. In such instances the 'Counselling' is far less like objective science and far more like intuitive dance.

You tell me what "professional boundaries and objectivity" says when the 14yo male Ward of the State wants to test his strength and wrestle with the Counsellor/Worker? You are now in realms of complex consideration as to the boys best interests, growth and development and lessons re >his< boundaries.

If I thought you had anything other than wilful ignorance of and contempt for the nature of the therapeutic relationship and/or therapeutic community I would elaborate.

“Just by the way, I thought you might be interested to read up on the company you keep with such arguments about how church is required for community and charity. Happy reading...”

Uh Uh…If you cannot explain or defend your >own pov< on the issue don’t try to palm off >someone elses pov< on me and expect me to respond to it.
You have had three bites at the related welfare/charity cherry thus far and fled each time-
The first was in relation to communes and communities…you forged and fled.
The second was in relation to surrogate community family…you cried “horse shit and fled.
The third was your complete rejection of church run agencies as being in the front line of child protection and your claim that the Fire Brigade was a real protective agency…then you fled again.
(Need the links?)

Now you attempt to foist anothers pov on me. An ethically inept and intellectually bankrupt gambit.

[darkstar3]

36. "Intellectually bankrupt gambit"

Sounds about right for you so far.

1/ We're not talking about church or community here, we're talking about a therapist who should be actually doing his job. So that's bullshit on one count.
2/ What I called "horseshit" was NOT the idea of surrogate community, but the idea that it could only be provided by church or faith communities. Bullshit on two counts.
3/ I said the Fire Department, Police Department, and other public services WERE "front line" defense agencies, and that the church didn't qualify. Your attempt to state simply that I believe the fire brigade will run down child beaters is bullshit on a third count.

When in doubt, spin and baffle with bullshit.

Moving on, don't forget that you accused ME of being the one to conflate psychology and general therapy, and now you suddenly defend S4P for the same action when I point out that he was the one who performed the original conflation. That, my myopic friend, is called hypocrisy. Also, bullshit on a fourth count.

Your ideas on counselling are so far outside the norm of what actual professional counselling and help really are, that I can only assume your prior experience with counselling has been limited to pastors and church personnel. Sorry, barky, but those aren't counsellors. Those are pastors and church personnel. Counsellors are first and foremost professionals. Otherwise, they're just bullshit artists posing as counsellors. And BTW, on this topic, I find your example of the 14 yo ward of the state appalling. There is absolutely no reason that an adult counsellor should engage in wrestling or roughousing with a 14 yo boy in need of guidance and care. It violates the very tenets of leadership, credibility, authority, and objectivity needed in order to maintain a proper non-familial guidance relationship with the child.

The one in this conversation expressing willful ignorance is you. You are willfully ignorant of the professional nature required of all counsellors and therapists. You are also willfully ignorant of the English language, consistently (and possibly deliberately) misreading sentences that go beyond an eigth grade reading level and gleefully sticking the word "your" in where "you're" is supposed to go. THAT willful ignorance, THAT anti-intellectualism is what I have heaping amounts of contempt for, and I don't give a damn how huffy it makes you.

Finally, I wasn't foisting someone else's POV onto you, which BTW seems to be your favorite defense claim...I was merely trying to illustrate for you the fact that the very arguments you so consistently trot out and harp on here on this board have made numerous appearances on sites like FSTDT. Given your desire to die violently before being lumped in with theists or atheists, I thought you might want to know how closely you resemble such fundamentalist stupidity. Take that as you will.

[ironbark]

37. And you still can’t answer a straight question-

And any minute now your going to actually answer a prior point question and tell us how the fuck a psychologist is going to gain insight from a client and reach for his diagnostic DSM WITHOUT HAVING FIRST ESTABLISHED A > “therapeutic relationship” <….????



“1/We're not talking about church or community here, we're talking about a therapist who should be actually doing his job. So that's bullshit on one count.”

Building community or establishing “therapeutic relationship” …you are on record as crapping on both propositions. Loudly and vigorously.
Your only interest/understanding of Welfare related issues resides in the opportunity to slap religion.
Beyond that you clearly do not know or care

Bullshit cover up one exposed.

“2/What I called "horseshit" was NOT the idea of surrogate community, but the idea that it could only be provided by church or faith communities. Bullshit on two counts.”

On atheism and charity. Darkstar3, 45#
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x243764#244307

“substitute surrogate community or some horseshit in there at will”

That’s you dismissing the very notion of ‘surrogate community’ as “horseshit”.

Bullshit cover up 2 fails.

“3/ I said the Fire Department, Police Department, and other public services WERE "front line" defense agencies, and that the church didn't qualify.”

Absolutely false.
In the context of a discussion on child protection you rejected any and all church >AGENCIES< (schools, foster care etc) as being in the front line of child protection and claimed-

“ the REAL role that protective agencies like police, fire, and EMT organizations’.

Priests abuse children at same rate as everyone else, Darkstar3, 125
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x244610#245417

And you never could or would explain how the Fire Brigade played any role in protecting children from child abuse.

“Your attempt to state simply that I believe the fire brigade will run down child beaters is bullshit on a third count.”

It’s right there in black and white, according to you church schools aren’t involved in child protection the “REAL role” belongs to the police and fire brigade.

Bullshit cover up 3 fails.

“When in doubt, spin and baffle with bullshit.”

Yea…But you keep getting caught out and exposed. So why bother?

“Moving on, don't forget that you accused ME of being the one to conflate psychology and general therapy….”

You can keep cutting/ignoring the obvious/valid “therapeutic relationship” commonality between psychology and general therapy/counselling…but it wont excuse or cover up your conflating and confusing the differing roles preformed or your crapping on the very notion of “therapeutic relationship” .

“Your ideas on counselling are so far outside the norm of what actual professional counselling and help really are,”

LOL.
Reduced so soon to the vague and oblique reference? “so far outside the norm” but you cannot/will not specify how or why?

And now instead of answering the points/questions raised you stoop to argument by projected assumption-
“… I can only assume your prior experience with counselling has been limited to pastors and church personnel.”

Yea Darkstar…They advised me that in cases of child abuse I should pray that you ring the REAL protective fire brigade.

“I find your example of the 14 yo ward of the state appalling. There is absolutely no reason that an adult counsellor should engage in wrestling or roughousing with a 14 yo boy in need of guidance and care.”

Ah huh. And I am in like manner appalled at your lack of insight, interest and understanding of what actually goes on in the welfare sector and what is required for the “guidance and care” of adolescents.
Pre planned structured and monitored “wrestling or roughhousing” can serve several therapeutic purposes.
You want the scientific insight/understanding of the principle?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsKPMBn6irE


“It violates the very tenets of leadership, credibility, authority, and objectivity needed in order to maintain a proper non-familial guidance relationship with the child.”

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Then you sit yourself down with your Psychologist armed with DSM and diagnose an abused adolescent State Ward with no adult male role model to healthy “non-familial” adulthood.
Good luck with that ;-)

“non-familial guidance relationship with the child”?
We tried that with children in orphanages at the turn of the century. Without the “familial” provision of a daily hug children under 12months simply die. Because they are not mechanistic materials that thrive on pure science…and nor are adolescent males.

Like I said. If there was any indication of any understanding or interest I would elaborate…but your only intent is to piss on notions you do not understand- surrogate community- therapeutic relationship.

“You are willfully ignorant of the professional nature required of all counsellors and therapists.”

You asked- “Do you deny that professional distance and objectivity are required of all counselors, sex- or otherwise?”

I answered and gave you the exception to the general rule. “non-familial guidance” is not always what the client seeks or needs.

“You are also willfully ignorant of the English language, consistently (and possibly deliberately) misreading sentences that go beyond an eigth grade reading level…”

As always- go for it. Cite, substantiate, provide example.

Spelling/grammar flame?
Ok.

In your two prior sentences you have wilfully as willfully and eighth as eigth and follow up in the next
Passage with favourite defence as favorite defense.

So do let me know when spelling/grammar becomes a hallmark of intellectual superiority.


“ I wasn't foisting someone else's POV onto you, which BTW seems to be your favorite defense claim...I was merely trying to illustrate for you the fact that the very arguments you so consistently trot out…”

Crap. You have had every opportunity to address what I have actually said on the issue of churches/charity/community across three+ threads. You flee that opportunity and throw up someone else’s pov AS IF it had anything to do with mine.
Cheap stunt and failed intellectually bankrupt gambit.

[darkstar3]

38. 4 things, and I'm out.

1. The links you have provided show exactly how you are misconstruing my arguments and exactly how you are full of shit. I encourage other people to read them, and I find it hilarious that you can't even see how poorly you come off when you try to link to them as some sort of proof of your incredible spin. You make Glen Beck's method of citing right-wing blogs look like journalism when you cite your own stupidity to further back your stupidity.

2. I happen to know many counselors, behavioral therapists, relationship therapists, and standard psychologists. Every one of them required training, and every one of them is quite adamant about the need for a professional demeanor and distance in their job. Your example of a child who requires a closer relationship is a red herring, because while there might be someone in the orphanage who provides that familial closeness, it should never be the counselor whose job it is to guide that child in the proper direction. Oh, but next you'll tell me that orphanages only have counselors, and no other types of child care professionals, and they don't designate one or two people to act as therapists and guides for the children under care at that location...oi. You really do love smokescreens and falsehoods.

3. Everybody makes simple spelling mistakes in the heat of debate and forgets to hit the spell-check button. You'll notice that's not what I called you out on. It's your gleeful "you're/your" substitution and other grammatical fails that I was pointing out, not to mention your awful reading, which allows you to take complex sentences and paragraphs and turn them into "the Fire Brigade is responsible for defending children against child abuse." It would be obvious to anyone with a middle-school equivalency that your assertion is NOT what I said, and yet you stand by it. Either your reading level is so low as to make our conversations pointless, or you are so intellectually dishonest and sophomoric as to make your very attempts at debate laughable. Either way, I see no reason to continue playing chess with a pigeon.

4. Finally, that link I showed you isn't someone else's POV, it's yours simply being parroted by someone who you really hate to be associated with. Again, anyone with reading skills is invited to read your contributions to this entire thread that you started and then compare your POV with the hateful bile spewed by this moron. I think maybe the two of you attended the same church at one point...

I'm out. Flame me, put me on ignore, throw 500 more lines of bullshit and smokescreen my way, it won't matter, because I simply don't care to get into another last word battle with the likes of you.

[ironbark]

42. Still cant answer a single pertinent question re your own pov?

That’s ok…I’ve done enough psychology to understand ‘withholding’.
I’m asking a question and your withholding the answer…that gives you a minimal sense of power and control over the argument and decreases the risk of looking even sillier with lame answer.

“1. The links you have provided show exactly how you are misconstruing my arguments….”

You have this compulsion for unfounded unsubstantiated claims and allegations.
Simply saying something does not make it so. To have any credibility at all you need to be able to back up what you claim/assert with provision of example.

You have a great capacity for flinging lame insult and hollow mockery-“full of shit”, “hilarious”, “stupidity”…but you >never< provide the examples that would warrant, justify or even explain your pov.

“…to link to them as some sort of proof of your incredible spin.”

You waste an entire paragraph on insult and calling clear evidence “misconstruing” and “spin” but cannot provide a single word of example as to how you have been misrepresented.
Why is that?
Because, now as before, you have >nothing< to validate your assertions.

The links provided prove beyond doubt exactly what you said and in what context.

“2. I happen to know many counselors, behavioral therapists, relationship therapists, and standard psychologists. Every one of them required training, and every one of them is quite adamant about the need for a professional demeanor and distance in their job.”

Such is your familiarity that you cannot correctly spell Counsellor or behavioural.
As has already been pointed out- In many countries and states it is possible to set ones self up as a Counsellor or Therapist without formal training or minimal training. The law is far less strict in this regard than it is for Psychology/ Psychiatry.

“a professional demeanor and distance in their job.” Refers to professional boundaries and the nature of the therapeutic relationship. Once again you cut/ ignore what has already been said and repeat what has already been established.
For some professions (Psychiatrists/Psychologists) the boundaries and therapeutic relationship are ridged and distant for others (and depending on their client group) the boundaries and ‘distancing’ is far less ridged.

Once more you display zero interest in understanding or exploring professional boundaries beyond your black and white mindset. You cannot even conceptualise Youth Counsellors with much broader professional parameters.
Go watch a couple of episodes of ‘Brat Camp’ or even ‘Patch Adams’ and come back with some glimmer of a humanised welfare practice that does not always demand “distance”


“Your example of a child who requires a closer relationship is a red herring, because while there might be someone in the orphanage who provides that familial closeness, it should never be the counselor whose job it is to guide that child in the proper direction.”

Youth Workers/Youth Counsellors are often required to work with a far greater degree of “familial closeness”…it is an essential aspect of the therapeutic relationship and the surrogate family/community. When the State or Church Agency becomes the surrogate parent the child is not brought to adulthood by professional clinical DSM diagnosis or exclusively “professional demeanor and distance in their job”.
Some one is going to have to hug and comfort the child when hurt/sad and/or hold them down or back when furious/angry…those “familial” tasks can fall to the Residential Worker, Counsellor or Supervisor at hand.

I fully understand you have no interest whatsoever in exploring or understanding these dynamics and simply wish to find the next avenue to slag and slander >anything< remotely associated with religion.


Your next gambit is straw man false psychic projection-
“Oh, but next you'll tell me...”
Then having falsely projected you pronounce sentence on your own fabrication-
“oi. You really do love smokescreens and falsehoods.”

“3. Everybody makes simple spelling mistakes….”

Yea. And most people have the decency to ignore them and focus on the point/ issue/ argument. You however demonstrate anal retentive obsession with spelling/grammar and engage thereby in flame itself contains spelling errors.
Rank hypocrisy.


“… which allows you to take complex sentences and paragraphs and turn them into "the Fire Brigade is responsible for defending children against child abuse."

LOL!

What is “complex” about your clear rejection of schools being in the front line protecting against child abuse and your succinct declaration that the “REAL” protective agencies in this regard included the Fire Brigade?


“It would be obvious to anyone with a middle-school equivalency that your assertion is NOT what I said”

It IS what you said. Here it is, clear as day, yet again-

“…the REAL role that protective agencies like police, fire, and EMT organizations’.



You are desperately avoiding and rejecting >any< role or recognition of church funded Schools and Agencies in the front line protection of children from abuse and you are allocating the “REAL” protective role to “police, fire, and EMT”

That is just another example of fanatical and obsessive anti religious bigotry.

“4. Finally, that link I showed you isn't someone else's POV, it's yours…”

Lying cant get more blatant than that.

There are at least three posts of mine on this board praising the charitable works of the Sisters of the Order Of Perpetual Indulgence
http://www.universaljoy.com.au/MG2010.htm

And you lie and falsify that there is any “comparison” or link between anything I have posted and the crap you linked to-
“…there is no meaningful public charity work performed by homosexual groups”

You have sunk to depths of deception and falsification hitherto unseen on this board.

No wonder you flagged your retreat before spewing it up…because you certainly cant stand and defend it.

[Deep13]

23. I submit that if a psychiatrist bases his or her opinions on theology...

...rather than on scientific medicine, then he or she has no business calling himself a doctor. What if that doctor truly believed that interracial marriage was against god's plan or that no Black person should have any self-esteem because god made them to be the servants of white people? Is THAT a matter of conscience too?

The days of bleeding patients and witch-doctors are over. There is nothing unreasonable in requiring medical professionals to adhere to the scientific principals of their profession and not to impose their religious dogmas onto their patients.

[struggle4progress]

28. It is not at all clear to me what the facts of the case are, nor what

arguments Lord Carey made, let alone whether Lord Carey's arguments were germaine to the facts, so I cannot judge the appropriateness of Lord Justice Laws' reaction

As I have been unable to locate a good and detailed link on such matters, and as no one else in the thread is providing any real details on the case and the underlying facts, we have here another ordinary R/T forum discussion mostly involving assumptions and hypotheticals, drawn from media accounts which encourage lots of heat and very little light. For example, this thread contains no information on the "relationship charity Relate" which employed McFarlane; and it contains no information on the actual disputes leading to the termination of McFarlane's employment

I have posted down thread links that indicate -- I cannot vouch for their accuracy -- that McFarlane did not per se object to counseling gay couples and was perhaps not fired for refusing to counsel but for indicating to his managers that there were circumstances in which he would not be able to effectively counsel. Here is another link, that suggests that Lord Carey's arguments are part and parcel of a rightwing "They're attacking us Christians" organizing strategy in the UK: http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2010/04/15/gary-mcfarlanes-barrister-paul-diamond-at-the-employment-tribunal-today-%E2%80%9Cthere-will-be-a-collision-between-the-established-faith-of-this-land-and-judicial-decisions-which-will-lead-to-civil/

So if I had to guess the situation -- based on the limited information currently available to me -- I might guess that McFarlane does not always object to counseling gay couples but believes there are some situations in which he could not, was terminated for telling a supervisor this, and then entered into a lawsuit that UK rightwingers have decided to promote as evidence of a great conspiracy against Christianity. The actual ruling may turn on the arcane details of UK employment law

[darkstar3]

30. Judges do not issue such statements if they are completely irrelevant to the case.

The statements DeSwiss highlighted in red above are a crystal clear indication that the defense, with the help of Lord Carey, attempted to use a "religious exemption" defense, and that the attempt was struck down as the ridiculous idea it actually is. If you're going to claim now that lack of detailed court proceedings somehow muddies this particular point, then you are being deliberately obfuscatory.

[Jim__]

24. I agree. I wouldn't want to get advice from a counselor who believed I was wrong ...

right from the beginning. I would hope that the counselor would tell me to seek help elsewhere.

[struggle4progress]

26. ... Mr McFarlane started training with Relate in May 2003 and said he enjoyed good relationships

with clients and colleagues. He was suspended in October 2007 after meetings with his manager, in which he claimed he was asked to state his views regarding same-sex couples. He was later sacked ... Derek Munn, a director at gay pressure group Stonewall, said: "People delivering public services mustn't be able to pick and choose who they will serve on the basis of personal prejudice." But Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "Mr McFarlane simply wanted his religious beliefs to be accommodated by his employer, which, in the specific facts of the case, was not unreasonable." ...
Page last updated at 16:58 GMT, Thursday, 29 April 2010 17:58 UK
Christian sex therapist Gary McFarlane loses appeal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/8651417.stm

... Mr McFarlane said after the hearing that the decision not to let him appeal the ruling left him "disappointed and upset". "I have the ability to provide counselling services to same sex couples," he said. "However, because of my Christian beliefs and principles, there should be allowances taken in to account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles" ...
Relate therapist Gary McFarlane loses appeal bid
April 29th, 2010
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/04/29/relate-therapist-gary-mcfarlane-loses-appeal-bid/

[darkstar3]

29. Fuck that.

there should be allowances taken in to account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles
No, there bloody well shouldn't. If you can't do the job, don't take the job. THAT'S the allowance for you to avoid contradicting your beliefs. If you can't be party to the dispensation of birth control, then never attempt to be a pharmacist. If you can't counsel a woman at great risk due to her pregnancy that abortion should be considered in order to save her life, then never attempt to be a doctor. If you can NEVER touch pork products, then never attempt to become a grocery clerk.

The list goes on for quite some time, but the bottom line is that 9 times out of 10 you know exactly what you'll be expected to do when you take one of these jobs. At that point, you can either do your job, or quit, but you no right to bitch about the fact that you took a job where your religious convictions were violated when it was clear up front that the duties of the job contradicted your beliefs.

[DeSwiss]

32. You want an allowance?

Here's your allowance: "find yourself a job where "woo-woo" is allowed. Obviously it won't be in a profession involving humans."

That was in answer to:

"there should be allowances taken in to account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles"

- Whomever you're referring to there is obviously on my IGNORE list, which is why I don't respond. And it would seem they're on my IGNORE list for good reason(s). And it is also obvious that you and Deep13 have way more patience than I do......

[jemelanson]

40. One has to wonder just what type of persecution of Christians in

Modern Britain that Lord Carey is speculating about.

Are Christians such a minority that they risk persecution at the hands of those whom the Christians have persecuted for the last oh 2000+ years? I somehow think that as a group Christians are probably the least persecuted of any religious group yet they tend to be the most vocal about any attempt to prevent them from persecuting other groups.

They(Christians) have always had a persecution complex.

[DeSwiss]

41. When Christianity lost the great ''Mojo of Fear'' over just about everyone....

...it decided to instead go with the "Martyrdom Scam." It's the longest running theatrical display in history (yes, even Cats). ;) There's always a new rendition of this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/catholic-bishop-blames-jews">tired old play being acted-out somewhere. With its tawdry and predictable scenes of indignation and piety. And with http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63K2CL20100421">promises to do better. But until they come completely clean, do better than what???? Maybe they can't "do better."

Of course these Anglican guys are the ones who're now trying to "win one for Jesus" via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams#Sharia_law">surrender to Sharia Law. Don't know how that's working out now.

- But I wouldn't put much stock in anything Lord Haw-Haw here has to say about anything. As they are clearly not a part of the Reality-based Community.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Yes, the evil British atheists eat Christians for breakfast every morning

There have been threats by lions to sue us for depriving them of their rightful share.

:sarcasm:

Really, this is getting bloody ridiculous. NO, there is no persecution of Christians in Britain. We don't even have official separation of church and state. If relatively few people in Britain are particularly religious, that's not 'persecution'.

[ironbark]

44. "some fava beans and a nice chianti" ? ;-) n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. He fears that he won't be able to persecute gay people

He thinks it's his right to stop any religious organisation from performing a ceremony for a civil partnership(ie a same-sex one). When civil partnerships were started in the UK, the law, for no reason that I can see, apart possibly to placate some bigots, said the ceremonies could only be performed by state registrars. Some religions, eg the Quakers, have said they want to be able to perform the ceremony for a partnership, so an amendment to the law was introduced into Parliament. Carey fought strongly against it, because he doesn't want any religious approval of same-sex partnerships, even if its not his own denomination.

The man is a lying bigot who is against civil and religious freedom. He wrote a letter to The Times trying to get support for his view, trying to pretend the amendment might be used to force all religions to do the ceremonies, although it explicitly said it was a purely voluntary move for each denomination. But he didn't point that out in his letter, because he wanted to mislead the readers: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/03/24/lord-carey-mendacious-and-hypocritical/