The latest “war” on religion
Warren Corson III
Apparently common sense has long since left the building. Hyperbole is the leading story and division is the mantra of many. Civil discourse is often ignored, a dusty tome left on a forgotten library shelf. To speak out against those who are declaring themselves the victims of this war is to be labeled an atheist, communist, socialist, pagan, devil worshiper or some other derogatory thing.
Don’t get me wrong, there have been many wars on religion, real wars, violent wars, but we are using this term now simply as a political and ideological tool and it is having nothing more than a negative effect. We have had real wars on religion; the crusades were not the proudest moment in our history, nor were the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust or the persecution of Christians in the Roman times. In all of those we had extreme ideology and a lack of understanding, compassion or acceptance of others, be it their faith, culture, heritage or ancestry. Understanding can be lacking at times.
Here in the US we had the Salem Witch Trials; a time when to be destroyed took nothing more than an accusation by the right individual or individuals. I wonder how much we have learned.
When we have an “us” against “them” mindset, war is inevitable. Peace is not in reach. When we choose to understand the mindset if not agree with it we are closer to compromise and peace. We need not approve of others but can respect them for not only what we have in common but in what we differ in. At times these differences can help spawn the next great wave of creation.
A little known fact about me is that besides being very spiritual, I was ordained in the past by two different churches. Now, these were not the biggest or most powerful churches to be sure and they did not require years of study, but they did require the ability to accept others. When asked to define my beliefs, I tend to try not to but if pressed I tell them that I am a “Buddeo-Christian,” that is to say that I was raised Christian and that I also study Buddhism (which is actual a philosophy and not a religion but often described as such).
There is much talk about clinicians and other treators feeling forced to work with people who are different than they are both in lifestyle, religion or culture. I really don’t get it. As treators it should not matter what our religion is nor that of our client. When we work with clients what matters is that we follow our code of ethics which make it clear that we are not supposed to push our belief systems on our clients, nor try to get them to live the lives we lead. Treatment is not about us, it is about our clients.
Depending on the counseling organization we belong we are guided to do the following (in brief)
• Do no harm
• Promote healing and wellbeing of clients
• Place the client’s and public’s interests above our own.
• Respect the dignity of our cliets, remain objective and act with integrity.
To paraphrase a famous quote from a professional wrestler in the 90’s, we clinicians and other treators should “know our role” and not get caught up with the hype. Our position of gay marriage, birth control, religion etc. are not to cloud our judgment nor our treatment of those we have taken an oath to treat.
Most of us in our careers will work with people who differ greatly from us. I personally have worked with rapists, murderers, pedophiles, adulterers, and gays, lesbians, cross dressers, democrats, republicans, rich, and poor, middle class and of every religion that I know of. I have worked with lazy people, type A people, people who were pro government, anti government, neo Nazi skin heads, anti male, anti white and anti American. There are others but I think I made my point.
As treators we need to know our prejudices, we all have them, but it is imperative that we not let them get in our way. One of my prejudices is my stance on sex offenders. If as an individual I had the power to lock them up forever, throw away the key and be done with it I likely would. As a clinician however whenever I was assigned a sex offender I treated them to the best of my ability. I saw them as human beings in need of treatment and I put any feelings that I may have had regarding their sentence or lack of sentence aside and followed my oath. It would have been easier to simply say that my faith prevented me from working with them and I may have tried that initially but one of my first bosses asked me on my first day if there were folks I preferred to not to work with any why. He began to send me those that I said I preferred to avoid. At time the “charts” would be lost for the first session so I had to get to know my client without knowing what vile acts they may have committed (this was a department of corrections setting). I got to see that they were people deserving of treatment; I still did not respect nor condone their actions but I did my duty.
Few people may get me but I would hope they would not condemn me because I am different. I see no real use for money other than what I need to support my family. I work for WAY less than I could and donate hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars a year to the not for profit I founded and other great causes. At 18 I had a vasectomy as a personal choice and possibly as a silent protest against all the children who are already born but lack parents and a safe place to live. A few women that I dated left once they knew that I had a child but any additional ones would need to be adopted. Thankfully my wife of 16 years, though she was surprised to learn this when we were dating, remained supportive of my right to choose.
I have known those who were abandoned by their family because they “chose to be gay.” I have known someone who was raped as a way to “teach” her not to be a lesbian. She never pressed charges due to familial pressures but lived with the horror for years. I too have seen a young child at the height of the racial tensions in the 1970’s get hit by an ice cream truck and had the driver seem unconcerned because it was just another black kid from the projects (he used a far less friendly term). I saw this poor child recovering from his wounds noticing that the scars were coming in white and say to his parents “maybe if I get hit again I will be totally white” in hopes that he would be treated better.
So as we make up our current war, please think of the very real ones that have been fought. Look at this war with clear eyes and ask yourself if it is really a war against you if you are only being asked to acknowledge that your ways are not the only ways in this great universe of ours. Ask yourself if you truly believe that the Grand Architect Of The Universe (*GAOTU) made everything and if you answer in the affirmative, would the GAOTU make things incorrectly or would the GAOTU have a purpose for all living things? If so, the war on religion is really just a war that we invented to attack ourselves.
Instead of waging yet another war, let us instead spend our time building bridges of understanding for one another. This can start with us as treators. When we put on our work clothes we are no longer individuals, we are professionals who took an oath to do no harm. We do not have to break bread with our patients but we have an obligation to help them explore their options, which will often include options that we personally do not agree with. Somehow I think that is what the GAOTU had in mind.
*(GAOTU is a generic term that I am using to include the leaders, Gods and beliefs of all people, so as to not disclude anyone for this blog).
Warren Corson III (Doc Warren) is a counselor and the clinical & executive director of a community counseling agency in central CT (www.docwarren.org).
As a protestant minister who is currently taking a class on ethics as part of my professional counseling program, I really appreciate this article. Thanks for sharing!
Yes, the current political firestorm us of war on religion does not do justice to the real issue. The issue is the Federal government mandating religious groups to act contrary to their doctrines. In doing so the Federal government is violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Federal govenment is in effect telling the religious oranization what its doctrine should be or where the doctrine is in error. As an ordained minister you should recognize there is not a separation of the secular and spiritual life of a believer. “Faith without works is dead”. Works contrary to doctrine is sin. I cannot think of a single religion that does not have some written doctrine that is the final authority for faith and practice. Therefore, if I am a Catholic who lives according to the church’s doctrine, I cannot prevent women from using contraception. However, the Federal government does not have the authority to change my doctrine or to pay for the contraceptives. The recent “contraception war” is not about women’s health. It is about the First Amendment.
Brent you are most welcome; I am glad I could help.
Chuck, the 1st amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” While my blog really was focusing on clinicians and not religious institutions, I would say that this could all be a matter of prospective. I personally do not see the government getting involved with or trying to judge that any religion is right or wrong but that any employer within the reaches of the nation must acknowledge that they have a responsibility to their employees and their employees health. The organization may not like birth control or related items which is indeed part of health care, but they have an obligation to help protect the health and welfare of the employees. As US citizens the employee has a right under the Declaration of Independence and the US constitution to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To me here is a case where the rights of the many individuals must take precedence over the rights of certain groups. As religions, they have the right to believe in what they believe in but they do not have the right to deny others of the same. Just as we as providers have no right to instill our belief systems on our patients.
Should it be permissible for instance for Jehovah Witness employees to be denied something as basic as blood as it goes against their beliefs or for Christian Scientists to be able to deny any access to health care be it via insurance or self pay, by its employees because the church is agaisnt it and instead believes that all things are curable through prayer if it is God’s will?
We have it within our grasps to make real and lasting change if we focus on those things that we can agree and then work outward from there. If we instead search to find technicalities or controversy where none were intended then we risk never having peace.
I personally believe in the words of our founded fathers (see below) and of the GAOTU* (see blog).
As a man of peace I am bothered that my tax dollars go to pay for wars, destruction and death. It goes against everything I believe in both spiritually and morally yet I pay my taxes as that is the law of this great country.
If you are ever in the area I welcome you to come sit by the fire, have a nice meal and to explore the many commonalities we have.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
Very interesting post. Thank you for these important thoughts. Your comment “When we put on our work clothes we are no longer individuals, we are professionals who took an oath to do no harm” provoked some thought. I would say when we put on our work clothes we continue to be individuals and continue to need to be self aware, to recognize our own emotional reactions, values and beliefs and their impact on our capacity to provide services. We continue to need to improve our capacity for being nonjudgemental and accepting of clients whose attitudes, values and behaviors clash with our own. Some clients’ value systems, belief systems or behaviors will activate such strong emotional reactions that we may be incapable of providing services to them. If so, we are responsible for recognizing this and if necessary and possible, finding another service provider for that person. We need to do these things because we are professionals committed to helping others.
Very interesting post. Thank you for these important thoughts. Your comment “When we put on our work clothes we are no longer individuals, we are professionals who took an oath to do no harm” provoked some thought. I would say when we put on our work clothes we continue to be individuals and continue to need to be self aware, to recognize our own emotional reactions, values and beliefs and their impact on our capacity to provide services. We continue to need to improve our capacity for being nonjudgemental and accepting of clients whose attitudes, values and behaviors clash with our own. Some clients’ value systems, belief systems or behaviors will activate such strong emotional reactions that we may be incapable of providing services to them. If so, we are responsible for recognizing this and if necessary and possible, finding another service provider for that person. We need to do these things because we are professionals committed to helping others.
Great point Nancy. It was one that I meant to include in the blog as well but one that did not make it due in part to an oversight and to space considerations. it should be noted however that if we have to refer out due to this conflict we should do it without acting prejudicial, condescending or damning (from the tone of your reply I can see that you implied this as well).
My point of no longer being an individual was not meant to be iron clad but to make a point that we are part of a much larger whole and that this larger whole becomes more dominant; that is to say we must focus of serving others as opposed to only serving ourselves. Should this pose an insurmountable blockage, referral to a professional who can meet the needs of our clients is imperative. We cannot and should not ever condemn a client because their beliefs differ from ours.
Doc,
I’m going to send you an email which will contain the exact quote from an Army general (not going to give the specific rank here, thus the lower case “g”) about common sense clearly not being so common.
Nash
Doc, this ethical issue is the reason I am here, reading posts on ACAs blog, for the first time.
I’m attending the ACA conference; I am horrified (sad, hurt, angry, and very concerned) by the number of counselors who apparently think that, because THEIR values are the right/true/better values, they are completely justified in not wanting to provide services to entire segments of the population.
I really thank you for your incredibly sensitive and thoughtful post. I have a hard time seeing past my anger, because they are basically negating me (and every other person who doesn’t share their beliefs) as a worthy and valuable human being. What kind of message are we sending to the public, if we accept this intolerance within our profession?