Atheist Mom Forced Into Court-Ordered Christian Counseling

[beam me up scottie]

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 07:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Atheist Mom Forced Into Court-Ordered Christian Counseling
September 15, 2015 by Michael Stone

In a flagrant church-state violation a New Mexico mom loses her children after refusing to attend court mandated Christian counseling sessions.

KRQE reports Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband, but instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

Salzman said:

I walked into the session and the very first thing she said to me was, ‘I start my sessions by praying.’ When I expressed my concerns that I didn’t pray she said, ‘well this is what I do’ and she proceeded to say a prayer out loud.

Salzman, a single mother of two, said she felt so “offended and disgusted” that she stopped going to the court-ordered sessions. The result was that the court took her kids away.

...

In one secretly recorded session the counselor told Salzman:

The meaning in my life is to know love and serve God. If you want to explore how God was in your past, how God was in your life and not in your life… I know you don’t believe in God which is fine but I know at some points he was in your life in some way.

It is hard to imagine something more obnoxious, or more infuriating, than being forced to endure some holier-than-thou Christian counselor explaining that God really was in your life, despite the fact that you don’t believe in God.

And it is heartbreaking to note that if a mother does not quietly endure the abuse of the obnoxious Christian counselor, her children will be taken from her by the courts.

Commenting on the story, Peter Simonson, ACLU Executive Director, said:

No one should be put in a position where they are forced to accept training or therapy that violates their own religious beliefs and morals.

We’ve got protections in our country under the Bill of Rights are intended to try and stop that. On the face of it, it looks pretty problematic.

“Problematic” is an understatement. This is despicable, and a clear violation of Salzman’s civil and constitutional rights.

The counselor is also Catholic extremist who used to be a "parent educator" at Project Defending Life, a radical anti-abortion group.


eta video:

[me b zola]

1. What a nightmere

Has the SCOTUS seen a case yet like this, where the courts mandate people to religious based programs? There really need to be protections against this type of thing. And on top of it all they took her children! Its become far too common place to separate mothers from their children.

[beam me up scottie]

3. I don't believe a challenge to counseling at AA has made it to SCOTUS yet.

I know that many atheists object to mandated attendance to AA which is considered to be faith based counseling but there aren't many alternatives.

This case is getting some attention on the internet, I hope the networks pick up on this and run with it.

[peacebird]

43. AA says your higher power can be a toilet seat, but you have to accept there is a "higher power"

Seems kind of weird to me....

[beam me up scottie]

50. It's wrong to tell an atheist they have to accept any higher power.

Some might not have a problem with AA but I'm not one of them.

Fortunately I've never had to attend any meetings.

[peacebird]

52. I agree totally with you, that said, the 'excuse' I have heard from AAers is youndon't have to

accept god, per se, just a higher power. Which can be anything, even a toilet seat.....

Weird.

[beam me up scottie]

54. It is weird.

It almost sounds like they came up with that to avoid being categorized as religious based counseling.

That way the courts could still mandate AA counseling without infringing upon first amendment rights.

[Major Nikon]

167. It's wrong to tell any alcoholic that

AA tells alcoholics that they are powerless over their addiction which is not only ineffective, but dangerous.

AA has no proven efficacy. It's really nothing more than a faith based sham which is no more science based than 'praying-away-teh-gay'.

[Warpy]

181. An atheist acquaintance of mine dealt with that one quite nicely

by saying his higher power was g.o.d., his gang of drunks, because when he'd get lost in bullshit, they'd call him on it and help him stay sober.

[jwirr]

67. The higher power thing allows for each person to have

their own power. I was told that includes the idea that your high power can be yourself.

[peacebird]

74. Well that is certainly better!

[jwirr]

76. My objection to court order participation is that it

usually does not work because you need to want to stop drinking - if you do not it is not going to matter. Also those who are going to AA because they want to stop are not helped by a section of the group who is just there so they do not have to go to jail again.

[AlbertCat]

84. The higher power thing allows for....

...pretending they aren't talking about god. Period.

[jwirr]

88. What wording would you use is you knew that you were

dealing with a mixture of beliefs?

I have actually heard this phrase used at pow wows because of the differing beliefs.

[AlbertCat]

92. dealing with a mixture of beliefs?

"Your institutionalized fantasies?"

"Your ancient security blankets?"

How about...

"Deal with your own beliefs yourself... we won't be discussing the supernatural."

[passiveporcupine]

169. If I ever had to go into AA I'd pick Tinkerbell

[awoke_in_2003]

141. Exactly...

I have attended AA meetings as an atheist. They are talking about god, as hard as they try to pretend they are not.

[AlbertCat]

81. accept there is a "higher power"

The laws of physics?


I was made to go to 15 NA meetings because some cop found a roach in my car.

It was a JOKE!

"All drugs are bad. We detest all drug use! Now let's take a break...." Everyone lit a cigarette.

[jwirr]

89. And as I said that is why I object to court ordered

participation in treatment programs of any kind. For any of them to work the person attending has to want to quit.

[AlbertCat]

104. the person attending has to want to quit.

Indeed.

Besides, there are NO professionals at these meetings.

One meeting I went to the 19 year old girl heading the group had bandages on each wrist. At another the young guy heading the group had a girl who was obviously his friend helping him. She would laugh at people's "confessions"! One group wouldn't allow me to speak or contribute to the collection plate because I had just smoked pot.... not a narcotic.

They are essentially pity parties, where if something good happens it's all "the higher power's" doing. If they fall off the wagon, they weep and cry and it's all their fault. Just dreadful and useless IMHO. I went to 5 different groups... and there were folks who are obviously addicted to going to these meetings. But there are no doctors, or professional councelors.

From "Strangers With Candy":
(the "Obscurity Prayer" at the Ala-coholics meeting) "Dear God, please give me the strength to blame those who did this to me, to accuse those who didn't, and the wisdom to know the difference."

[jwirr]

105. Yes, I agree with everything you have just said. I

learned about this from my S-I-L and some of his friends whom I visited in a treatment center for alcoholism.

After listening to their description of the meetings they attended I wrote the judges of our county about this - especially that after the meeting ended half the group adjourned to the bar. To my knowledge at least in our county they stopped court ordered treatment.

[awoke_in_2003]

142. "there were folks who are obviously addicted to going to these meetings"

Nailed it. There are some people who just love to tell there story and get the sympathy of those around them. It made my skin crawl.

[maddiemom]

127. Many AA members are heavy smokers. Having to go outside in most meeting venues

has necessitated the change in the last quarter decade.

[maddiemom]

125. Yeah. "God as we understand Him" actually.

My first sponsor even suggested I use my recently cheating husband (after twenty previous years of a good marriage) as a "higher power." HELLO! That pretty much did it for me with AA.: a lot of unlicensed, if usually (but not always) well-meaning amateur psycholologists who can really only speak to what worked for them. The fellowship is really the point: major points for that.

[busterbrown]

147. Yep

“Toilet Seat” Strange analogy ?

“Higher Power” can be an energy which induces one to be compassionate, Empathetic and honest.. Has little to do with a traditional god.

[Old Codger]

184. Actually

I believe you have to accept that there exists something that has more power than you ... not some supreme being ... it is really easy and mostly people that use that for an excuse to keep on drinking are doing just that ..using it as an excuse... I am an atheist I personally all religions are a crock, and organized religion is the biggest crock of all... but I was easily able to fake a "belief" in order to save my life...No contest...Alcohol kicked my ass for many years so I had no problem at all admitting there was in fact something more powerful than me...

[busterbrown]

146. Be careful please..

In AA, it’s a" God of your understanding".. Could be a tree, a door knob, or the moon.. It just doesn’t matter.

Many in AA who have been sober a long time have no interest in organized religion. In fact they hate it.. Many have been abused by the Church and feel was one the main reasons they have the disease in the 1st place..

Atheists by the way are welcome in AA..

Only requirement is a desire to stop drinking.

[beam me up scottie]

148. And like I said, many atheists reject the idea of a higher power.

I'm one of them, I would be infuriated if I had to attend.

This is not a slam on AA, it's criticism of court mandated attendance.

[busterbrown]

149. Agree 100%..

Many in aa reject a higher power and welcome to stay... Fellowship, hanging around others like yourself...It’s a support group..
Only requirement a desire to stop..

[AlbertCat]

175. Atheists by the way are welcome in AA..

That's what they "say".

But it's a religious ceremony anyway.

[Atman]

5. You mean like AA?

Oh, wait...God is just a doorknob. Never mind.

[me b zola]

9. LOL, yeah, like AA

I was horrified when an atheist friend told me they were mandated to go to AA, where they were told that their "higher power" could be anything, even a doorknob. My friend was livid, and I don't blame him.

I'm a spiritual person but I don't like any mingling of religion and government. There are a lot of people like me that will stand with A&As to fight injustices like this.

[progressoid]

38. What if my higher power is Pinot Noir?

Or a bowl of gonja?

[peacebird]

53. Mine is craft beer, but i like the way you think!

[progressoid]

123. Yeah!

I was given a little home brew kit for my birthday. Gonna give it a try in a couple months.

[navarth]

154. spelling nazi

you misspelled ganja.

for penance: no bowls for an hour.

[progressoid]

157. Heh.

I saw it and actually thought I had changed it before I hit the post button.

I won't blaspheme again!

[progree]

55. What is objectionable about AA/NA is the endless proselytization about a prayer-answering

favor-dispensing deity -- the word "God" appears 136 times in the first 11 chapters of the Big Book, not counting Him, His, He, Maker, Creator, Employer, Principal, Father, assigner or our roles, giver of our sex powers, provider of our needs, something other than our well-loved A.A. group, no human power, nor any other human being, accomplisher of the humanly impossible, divine, Providence, has all knowledge and power).

And how the Big Book demeans anything human as a higher power .. e.g. to take two of many quotes:

"we simply do not stop drinking so long as we place dependence upon other people ahead of dependence on God. Burn the idea into the consciousness of every man that he can get well regardless of anyone. The only condition is that he trust in God and clean house." - BB p. 98

"This Power has in each case accomplished the miraculous, the humanly impossible." - BB p. 50

And how the Big Book demeans non-believers (agnostics) with these characterizations: "Handicapped By Obstinacy" (p. 48), "prejudiced" and "unreasoning prejudice" (p. 48) "Rather Vain" (p. 49), "No Reasonable Conception Whatever" (p. 49), "Biased And Unreasonable" (p. 51), "Prey To Misery And Depression" (p. 52), "Couldn't Make A Living" (p. 52), "Full of Fear" (p. 52), "Our Ideas Did Not Work" (p. 52), "We Couldn't Quite Step Ashore" (p. 53), "Leaning Too Heavily On Reason" (p. 53), "Abjectly Faithful To The God Of Reason" (p. 54), "Whirling On To A Destiny Of Nothingness" (p. 54), "Fooling Ourselves" (p. 55),

Just me and a few other fuckheads being sour grapes? I don't think so....

6 out of 6 of the highest courts -- all just one level below the U.S. Supreme Court -- have found A.A. to be religious in nature -- religious enough that coerced attendance by government constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of one of the U.S. Court of Appeals cases, thus letting the ruling stand.

Much more on all this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1144174#post32

[beam me up scottie]

61. "6 out of 6 of the highest courts...have found A.A. to be religious in nature"

Thank you for posting that link, I've got it bookmarked.

You should consider making it an op here.

[Atman]

122. I got out of it simply by refusing to attend and wearing them down.

Seriously. It was a long, long time ago in the days of my misspent youth, but I was no more religious then than I am now. I was mandated to attend something like twenty AA meetings, get the card signed, all of that shit. I went to exactly ONE meeting, and when they told me to stand up and hold hands and pray I said "Fuck this shit" and left. I went to hearing after hearing (couldn't afford a lawyer at the time) and told them the same thing -- I'm not religious, I don't believe in your god, I cannot see how it is constitutional for you to mandate that I attend church. I came armed with all the statistics; Doing NOTHING is just as effective as AA in terms of quitting drinking. Look it up, it's true. AA can cite no scientific study that proves it is more effective than meditating. None. But courts keep mandating that people attend these thinly veiled church services. They kept trying to send me back, but I chose not to drive rather than go to a government-ordered church service. Finally, at one hearing, one magistrate at least had the decency to be honest about it. He said "We don't care what you believe. This is your punishment." That put the nail in the coffin. By the time I was done with the appeals my license was re-instated anyway. Not one signature on an index card.

[busterbrown]

150. The State and area where the Group is located has a lot to do

with the way it is managed.. There is an Agnostic meeting in L.A....

[busterbrown]

153. By the way Judges send people to aa because of the results..

[Atman]

158. No, they don't.

The facts don't back up your statement. Statistically, NO method of so-called treatment is better than AA. In other words, you can just quit on your own. You can attend Secular Organization for Sobriety. You can go to therapy or visit a counselor. ANYTHING one does has exactly the same success rate as AA. Anything. Look up the stats. As even AA people will tell you, nothing will get you to quit your addiction other than your commitment. So, do people who regularly attend AA meeting achieve success? Sure...if they're committed to sobriety. But no more so than anyone else attending/doing any other program or therapy. AA is a religious organization, and it should not be a court-mandated program anymore than a court should be allowed to tell you to attend church as your punishment.

[busterbrown]

159. Wrong.. The Only Requirement Is a Desire To Stop Drinking..

There are agnostic meetings in L.A...and more to come..

Always seem that those who detest AA the most.. Are angry drunks.. who have no support whatever.. They don’t want any because they have no intention of stopping..

By the Way..

http://aaagnostica.org/2013/07/14/two-new-agnostic-meetings/

[Atman]

160. Wrong. You are simply wrong.

Statistically, scientifically, actually...there is absolutely no correlation between attending AA and quitting drinking. None. You cannot find me any such evidence, I guarantee it. But then, you and I both stated virtually the same case; the only requirement (commitment) is to stop. I you are committed to sobriety, you can talk to a squirrel in the park and still quit drinking. AA does NOTHING to make you stop drinking. Again, there is Secular Organization for Sobriety, and many other non-God-based organizations which can offer you support. The only -- the ONLY -- commonality is one's personal desire/commitment to abstain. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, that a court should mandate you to attend an AA church service, which is exactly what they are. You can call God a doorknob all you want, but when you force me to hold hands and pray to a doorknob, you're not fooling anybody.

[busterbrown]

164. Boy! Are you up the wrong creek.

It’s the fellowship that works for most... One identifying with the other... This works and is the main reason aa works. the ability to identify and discuss the disease.. It’s open ended.. Send me a link of are reputable site ( not involved with making money) which has developed into a program which helps an alcoholic stop drinking.. You won’t find any..You absolutely have no proof that aa doesn’t work.. Millions would testify that it does work

[Atman]

166. You are obviously a friend of Bill.

You refuse to actually listen (read) a word I said. Since you obviously have a computer with a web browser, you are welcome to use The Google. You will find that it backs up my statement 100%. Now, to be clear...I am not saying that AA does not work for those who enjoy the fellowship and stay with the program. Not at all! But that was/is the entire point of my post. Statistically, scientifically, measurably, no program is better than another. It doesn't matter whether you're in AA or SOS or SMART Recovery, or talking to that squirrel in the park. Statistically, in the real world, AA's success rate is no better than any other method of recovery. None. And that is because the one key factor in choosing a life of sobriety is choosing a life of sobriety. It doesn't matter what club you belong to, it doesn't matter how many coins you collect, it doesn't matter how often you attend meetings. Scientifically, it just doesn't matter. If you don't want to be sober and remain sober, you won't, and no amount of AA meetings and coins and fellowship will change that. Period. It really isn't even open for discussion, just look at the scientific evidence (I did, a LOT of it).

I'll make the assumption that you've been sober for a while, and I commend you for that. But as far as barking up the wrong tree, look no further than the tree in your own yard. Whatever it is that keeps you straight, whatever it is that keeps you from screaming out in the night, whatever it is that keeps you clean and healthy, go for it. Live it. Love it. Embrace it.

But government has no business forcing people to attend church, and church is exactly what AA is. I've been there.

[passiveporcupine]

170. religion as punishment

I love it. I agree, it is.

[druidity33]

2. War on Christians?

more like a war on Atheists... Go Unbelievers!

K&R for the ACLU.

and i hope she gets her kids back real soon.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Right?

When was the last time a Christian was forced to listen to a speech from an atheist counselor about how they don't really believe in God in order to get their kids back?

[Dustlawyer]

23. That's it! Real persecution as opposed to the fake crap the Kentucky clerk claims.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Someone should set up a go fund me account for this mom.

I'd kick in a few bucks to help pay her legal costs so she can sue the crap out of everyone involved.

[retrowire]

6. Forced religion is here folks.

is this the right time to use the word fascism?

[beam me up scottie]

7. Yes it is.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

- Sinclair Lewis

[retrowire]

8. wow

what a perfect quote that is.

we need to get it into law, a separation of church and state needs to be made official.

[beam me up scottie]

11. It's in the US Constitution:

From Wikipedia:

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state&quot is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Here's a good article about the myth that there is no Constitutional separation of church and state:

Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn't Separate Church and State

[retrowire]

27. apparently it's a phrase and interpretation.

EDIT: I stand corrected.

upon reading it further, the amendment itself, I think this line is pretty damn clear actually.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of."

thank you for the edification.

[maddiemom]

64. One of my favorite quotes, also.

I assume you were being sarcastic/ironic otherwise. The "Christian" idea of religious tolerance is that no one disagrees with them. They've had it their way so long in this nation and been tolerated due to the honest charity of other faiths or non-believers. This "persecution" nonsense is just that...nonsense. FYI, I'm actually a fully baptized Presbyterian. It was pretty much a "go along to get along" thing in my community sixty-some years ago. My family (partly Scandinavian) was very liberal. It was pretty much the same in politics, with my father convinced he had to be a registered Republican professionally, although he never voted that way. My mom (Norwegian side) was an early working mom and outspoken liberal who met and was on stage with JFK when he was barnstorming the country in 1960. I also remember some "good" Republicans back in the day. The unholy alliance with the "religious right" should have been the death of them, but has only made them more strident. The rest of the modern world find us a joke.

[retrowire]

93. me? no sarcasm

but truthfully I was naive! now I know though thanks to others.

[Auggie]

45. That's not fascism

That's religious zealotry, and fortunately (or hopefully) somewhat isolated. Fascism will be when the first amendment is repealed/rewritten or when atheists are given the choice between church or detention camps.

[mountain grammy]

57. I think it's a form of fascism for any citizen to be given a choice

go to church or there will be a consequence. Her children were taken from her because she is an atheist. Make light of this, and the next step is so much easier.

[Auggie]

98. Needs to be widespread ideology supported by national and local government with accompanying law

to be true fascism. This is too isolated a case.

[mountain grammy]

101. I'm afraid it's not that isolated.

Religion is breaking down the door of the government. It's all around us.

[retrowire]

65. oh, hmmm food for thought! n/t

[LittleGirl]

10. wow

I can't believe this shit. that woman isn't a christian at all, she's satan. (the counselor).

[beam me up scottie]

13. Nah, she's a Christian.

The worst bigots I have ever known were Christians.

They just like to blame Satan when they get caught.

[LittleGirl]

15. I agree

I was raised in the bible belt. Those people are ruthless.

[beam me up scottie]

16. You got it.

Ever notice how when some of the worst offenders get caught cheating, lying or stealing it's because they had a "lapse in faith"?

[LittleGirl]

40. hypocrites

most of them. There are a few Christians I've met that really do live well but they are NOT shoving it down your throat either.

I have a real problem with those xians that can't say one sentence without invoking their lord in the process. It's exhausting to listen to them and I avoid them completely.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Exactly.

You have to pick your battles and avoiding proselytizers is better for your mental health.

[PeaceNikki]

12. It's appalling. They're the Christian Taliban. Can you just imagine

how pissed the Christians would be if a judge ordered one of them to Islamic counseling? How can they not see that this is exactly the same thing?

[beam me up scottie]

14. But that's DIFFERENT.

The Christian God is the one true God because Bible!

[gregcrawford]

17. How much more proof do we need...

... of the malevolent evil of religious extremism? They may be Taliban lite, but they are carved out of the same turd.

I have ZERO tolerance for such people. And the fucking judge should be thrown off the bench and disbarred.

[beam me up scottie]

19. I agree 100%.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the article.

[flygal]

18. {{shudder}}

I took driver's ed from a born again freak who insisted on Christian music playing in the car.

[beam me up scottie]

20. I worked for one who made me send printed bible verses with the customers' invoices.

The things you do when you don't want to starve.

[Arugula Latte]

95. I got Lasik from a doctor who prayed before he started lasering my eyeball.

I was thinking: "Reallly? You're asking some imaginary supernatural being for help here?"

[RoccoR5955]

21. I'd like to see this go to SCOTUS

This is a war on freedom FROM religion, which is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Freedom of religion includes NO religion.
WTF is wrong with the judge? The judge should be disbarred.

[beam me up scottie]

22. She endured it to get her kids back.

Otherwise I think she would have taken it to a higher court.

I hope she sues everyone involved.

[Lordquinton]

126. No religion is just not making a choice

you have to choose!

And you can't invoke Rush, they're Canadian.

[RoccoR5955]

138. Why can't I choose

"none of the above."

[wolfie001]

25. Poor woman has to surround herself with these wackos!

Surreal and scary! Twilight zone level!

[beam me up scottie]

26. Can you imagine?

Especially since the counselor was such an extremist, who knows what else she said.

[mak3cats]

28. What the ever-loving fuck! ('nuff said)

[beam me up scottie]

29. .

Word.

[blackspade]

30. Another one for the Talibornagain file....

[beam me up scottie]

31. And they think Kim Davis is a victim.

[blackspade]

32. No doubt.

[LostOne4Ever]

33. And yet, there are some on DU who think Atheists face little to no persecution...

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Here is hoping that mom takes all of them to court and gets every single dime she can!!![/font]

[beam me up scottie]

34. Such a cruel thing to do to a mother trying to get her kids back.

And what you said!

[KansDem]

35. "Christian Mom Forced Into Court-Ordered Atheist Counseling"

I wonder how that headline would go over in our "Judeo-Christian" based nation.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Or "Christian Mom Forced Into Court-Ordered Muslim Counseling"

The screams of persecution would be deafening, millions of dollars would be raised and dozens of new laws would be passed to protect Christians.

[jtuck004]

41. Typically, you don't need "counseling" if you're an atheist. They aren't the troubled ones. n/t

[raouldukelives]

36. So odd how so many self-described "Christians"

Want people do to the opposite of what the New Testament tells them to do.

Build up personal wealth. Appear better than others in dress and appearance. Pray in public. Don't forgive. Don't feed the hungry. Serve Caesar.

It is as if they want people do the opposite of what the religion they are named after commands them to do.

[beam me up scottie]

39. They pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow.

[Thav]

49. And it's usually the hateful parts.

and usually straight out of Leviticus.

People doing dumb and hateful things in the name of Christ really makes it hard to be a Christian.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Well most atheists know all Christians aren't like that counselor.

I think most on DU would be as disgusted by this story as we are.

[raouldukelives]

56. True, but it makes it much easier to spot a real one whn you see one. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

161. Please don't use the No True Scotsman fallacy.

When referring to "true Christians".

Christians are self-identifying.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

QUOTE:An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.




http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[raouldukelives]

187. Well, sure. Just like anyone I suppose.

One can say they are a liberal, a Democrat, a Christian or a vegetarian.

For me, the proof has always been in the pudding. For others, if they say it, they are.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

188. The logical statement would be

Yes, he or she is a Christian and a good person.

Or, if the person says they are a Christian and they are not a good person, they have a word for that: hypocrite.

However, the idea of "Christian ideals" if you take it literally is meaningless, because the Bible contains many hundreds of nonsensical rules and contradictions that are quite easy to find. I have yet to find a Christian that will explain to me the hateful and cruel stuff that Jesus allegedly said. They just say "It's a metaphor or a simile." They refuse to deal with the contradictions. They ignore them.

I am waiting for a church that will have the guts to say: "We don't take the whole Bible seriously. The only parts we subscribe to are The Sermon on the Mount, "As you did it to the least of them, so also you did it unto Me" and whatever other parts teach about kindness and decency.

Even among the liberal Protestants, like the denom I was raised in, I have yet to see any denomination do that.

If you want to read something very unsettling, read "The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, by David I. Kertzer.

[raouldukelives]

189. It is insanity to hear them hop from book to book.

Some still wear the veil upon their hearts as it were.

To me, it feels like it goes way beyond hypocrisy. To the point it seems they are trying to do everything in direct opposition to what they are commanded. So instead of being Christian, they would be more aptly described as Anti-Christian.

Like a self professed vegetarian who espouses the benefits in public while wolfing down burgers and owning shares in McDonalds privately.

[progressoid]

44. This "counselor" is a piece of work.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Thanks! I couldn't get the video to embed in the op.

Everyone should watch it.

[mountain grammy]

62. So the Court (government) orders counseling

and chooses the counselor, who meets her clients in the library, against public policy? Along with crossing the line of separation of church and state by preaching to her clients, mandated to be there by the state, and shady business practices, sounds like someone's hand is being washed here.
Where is Huckabee? Where is Cruz? oh yeah, praying with the "persecuted" Kim Davis..

Sickening, this story. Wonder how often it happens? I hope she sues the snot out of them. Go ACLU!

[kenfrequed]

46. Christian fascism.

This is what it looks like.

[beam me up scottie]

48. When I read the headline I thought it would be Texas.

Or the south but I guess they don't have a monopoly on Christian extremists and their enablers.

[Punx]

58. So if the higher power is

Marijuana, as in the Church of Cannabis. How does that work here?

Just asking.

[beam me up scottie]

59. You mean in AA?

Because the counselor in the op was a Christian and specifically referred to her god.

If you're talking about AA it can be any higher power.

[progree]

60. Yes, like A.A. -- all 6 of the highest courts have found it to be religious, for quite obvious

reasons.

All 4 federal appeals courts and both state supreme courts that have heard these cases have concluded that A.A. is at least religious in nature and coercion into A.A./N.A. is a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause

Four Federal Courts of Appeals (Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth circuits -- the latter one twice) and Two state supreme courts (New York and Tennessee) have ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are religious and that nobody can be coerced by government authority into attending these organizations (as that would violate the First Amendment's prohibition against the state establishment of religion). No Federal Court of Appeals and no State Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. To date, the United States Supreme Court has declined to consider any of these rulings, thus letting these rulings stand.

For more on these court rulings:

Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation, 2nd Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 1996
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/115/115.F3d.1068.95-7055.1760.html

Rauser v. Horn, 3rd Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001
http://pub.bna.com/cl/994013.htm

Kerr v. Farrey, 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 1996
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1133105.html

Inouye v. Kemna, 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 2007
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/BA99S1AKQ.DTL

Hazle v. Crofoot, 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 2014
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Atheist-inmate-settles-for-1-95-million-over-5822767.php

Arnold v. Tennessee Board of Paroles, Tennesses Supreme Court, 1997
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tn-supreme-court/1214747.html

Griffin v. Coughlin, New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court), 1996
http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I96_0137.htm

Here is a Duke Law Journal article that discusses the religious aspects of A.A. and the definition of religion for constitutional purposes (first amendment establishment clause). http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+785

=================================================

It is endless proselytization about a prayer-answering favor-dispensing deity -- see post #55 for the short version

Or this for the whole 9 yards: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1144174#post32

[beam me up scottie]

63. Thank you, that deserves its own op in this group.

Whole lot of research and information, excellent work.

[progree]

71. Thanks. I'll work on a stand-alone OP version

rather than something that starts out as a reply bashing someone's opinion. Shouldn't take long.

[Punx]

69. What I was trying to point out

Was the conflict that would result from being a Church of Cannabis follower and consuming cannabis and being forced to be in AA.

Wouldn't your (just as valid imho) religious views be discriminated against in AA?

[beam me up scottie]

72. Good point about being a user of Cannabis and a follower of the Church of C.

That would be an interesting case for the ACLU.

And yes my lack of religious beliefs would make being forced to attend AA counseling a form of discrimination.

Let's hope one day the SCOTUS sees it as such.

[jwirr]

66. Where is the ACLU? If ever there was a case of the

government establishing a religion this is it. Makes one absolutely sick. This so-called counselor should not even be licensed as a family counselor but then I wonder if Texas even licenses counselors.

[beam me up scottie]

68. She got her kids back but hopefully she sues.

Then the ACLU will get involved.

And this was in New Mexico although I can understand why you thought it was in Texas, that was my first guess too.

[jwirr]

70. Thanks for the correction. Glad she got the kids back.

I want her to sue the judge because as a government official s/he was establishing a religion. Definitely a violation of the constitution.

I have seen some good Christian counselors who work with families and leave their religion out of it but this one is not one of them.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Yes, most counselors who are religious don't cross that line.

And I really hope she sues too.

[Lordquinton]

128. "most counselors who are religious don't cross that line"

I saw what you did there.

[happyslug]

80. Sue for What? She disobeyed a COURT ORDER.

She was the one who BROKE THE LAW by disobeying a Court Order, not the judge. If she believed the court order was illegal or unconstitutional all she had to do was file an appeal, she did not. It does not even looked like she asked the trial court for a new counselor.

Now, she may have a case against her own lawyer, if that lawyer had agreed to this counselor without the mother's agreement, but I suspect this counselor is on a list of approved counselors for that court and is recommended by attorneys to their clients for she is the cheapest on the list. Thus, as far as the court is concerned, this counselor as selected by the Mother and once selected the mother had to finished the sessions OR go to someone else who is court approved. The Mother refused to go and then lost her children, finished the program, had her children returned to her and is now complaining that she had to go to sessions she herself selected. The Court did nothing wrong. Her attorney MAY have done something wrong, but I suspect the Attorney gave her the list of approved counselors and told her the one selected was the chearpest. That is NOT malpractice by the attorney so no action against her attorney.

Thus no harm to the Mother caused by the Courts and thus no one to sue.

[beam me up scottie]

85. From the ACLU:

ACLU executive director Peter Simonson said, “No one should be put in a position where they are forced to accept training or therapy that violates their own religious beliefs and morals.”

“We’ve got protections in our country under the Bill of Rights are intended to try and stop that,” Simonson said of Salzman’s experience. “On the face of it, it looks pretty problematic.”

Your speculation about the mother is blaming the victim.

[happyslug]

100. The ACLU rarely gets involved in Child custody cases.

And while what the ACLU says is true, that is NOT the case in most Custody and Visitation cases. In such cases the parties are ordered to go to counseling, but who they go to is up to them to select. Once selected the court will issue an order naming the counselor (if the Counselor agrees to take on the case) so that the counselor can released to the courts that the person had finished the sessions.

As I pointed out before, disobeying a Court Order is NOT permitted, what this woman should have done was to ask the court to name a different counselor, one found by her. It does NOT appear that the Mother took that option, instead she disobeyed a court order. Disobeying a court order is NOT permitted in our system of laws, appealing that order is how you handle disputes as to the legality of a Court Order.

Thus the ACLU's statement, "On the face of it" means if the COURT ORDERED her to go to this Counselor, who was selected by the courts not the Mother (a Huge IF), then that violates the First Amendment. On the other hand if the Court just ordered counseling and it was up to the mother to pay for and select such counselor and she picked this counselor, that is NOT a First Amendment issue. I suspect the later is the case for that is the practice in most of the US.

[beam me up scottie]

103. You're telling me what this woman "should have done" based on what you don't know?

How can you judge her when you admitted you don't know all the facts?

[happyslug]

108. The Report stated the Judge took away the Children, that could only be be in contempt

Thus this woman CLEARLY violated a court order where the rule of law says she should have appealed the order. That is all I need to know to see what her first problem was. She disobeyed a Court Order, the judge found her in contempt and took her children away from her til she complied with the Court Order. The judge returned the Children ONCE SHE COMPLIED with the court order.

That is the rule of law in the US. As I explained above that is why Martin Luther King was Jailed and his sentence for contempt was upheld, he violated a Court Order that was later struck down as illegal. That the Order was illegal was no justification for him to violate it. The same here, if she believed the Order was illegal, she should have ask the court to modify it, or file an appeal, she did neither, instead she complied with the order and the Children were returned to her. That is seen by what she said in the piece.

[beam me up scottie]

109. So you're just speculating that she was a bitter ex and used this as an excuse to get out of it.

That's all I wanted to know, thanks.

[passiveporcupine]

176. Did you even read the story, or watch the video?

After attending the first session the mother called the court to complain about the religious part of the session. They did not respond to her. She walked out of the second session when it also started with a prayer. That is why she got her children removed for contempt of court.

If the court had responded to her first complaint and allowed her to go to another counselor, or told the counselor to make it a secular meeting, she would have been able to finish the sessions.

As it was, she HAD to finish the sessions to get her children back. Not with another counselor...but with the same one. And her paperwork told her who she had to see. So, did she get to pick that counselor out of a list? Who knows. I sure don't. Did she know it was a Christian based counseling session?

The counselor says she does not bring religion into her sessions if the customer doesn't want it, but according to the video, she certainly did. It would be nice to see a video of the entire session, showing the mother resisting the religious indoctrination and it being forced on her any way. Without that it's her word against the counselors. But why would she walk out and lose custody of her kids for a month if she didn't object to the religious indoctrination?

[Dont call me Shirley]

163. An ACLU case would not be a child custody case, it would be a violation of her civil liberties

against separation of church and state.

[happyslug]

77. It is? Courts do this all the time...

Domestic Relations courts ORDER people to go to Counseling sessions all the time. The parties often have to agree to go to such sessions and pay for such sessions. Who they go to is up to the parties. The courts (and most Domestic Relations Lawyers) often have a list of such counselors but the Court will NOT name the counselor until one is selected by the parties. The cheaper ones tend to be religious based.

Thus, I suspect, this woman picked one of the cheapest Counselors and then objected to the counseling. Her option was to request the Court to permit her to name a different counselor, but instead she just refused to go. That is a violation of a Court Order and why she lost her kids for a month. She should have asked the judge to appoint someone else, but when she asked the Judge, the Judge asked her who and she could not name one. Thus the Judge had to kept this counselor as court ordered UNTIL this woman finished the counseling OR hired someone else to do the counseling.

Sorry, this is NOT a separation of Church and State issue but one of a party disliking the idea of going to counseling in the first place. In most cases the party selects the counselor not the Court, the court just orders Counseling. In some cases the other side selects the counselor, but that is in joint counseling situations. In such situation it is often disputed as who to go to for it is common for both sides to what different counselors. In such cases the Judge will decided who the parties will go to.

Thus I suspect we are hearing of a woman who disliked the breakup of her marriage and having to share her children with their father. Counselling for such people (both mothers and fathers) are often court ordered, but who they go to is up to the parties not the courts except when the children or the other sides is involved (and in such joint counseling situations the Courts will only get involved if no agreement can be reached between the parties).

[jwirr]

82. You suspect. The article stated that the court selected

the counseling service. And that is the issue.

BTW one needs evidence to back up their suspicions.

[beam me up scottie]

87. I knew someone would be along to blame the mom.

It's always the uppity atheist's fault.

[happyslug]

114. To may variables for the Court to have selected the Counseling service

To many people have to many issues for the courts to select a counseling service. The courts will order people to go to a one day class on issue that occur during separations, but not a 10 day counselling session. The later are to one on one for the courts to pay for and sooner or later the courts will have to pay for them unless they can get the parties to pay. You can not be held in contempt if you have no money for do what the court order unless the Court finds you could have afford to pay for what was ordered but decided not to.

As to "Court Selection" that is a broad term, which includes court approved counselors who know what the courts want. Thus the court "Selects" counselors suggest to them by the parties. As I said before, the Judge wanted counseling sessions, and some how he approved of this counselor and issued an order for such sessions.

Judges know if a conflict occurs between a counselor and the party being counseled, that undoes the whole benefit of counseling. Thus, Judges leave it up to the parties to select their counselors. Once selected by the parties, the Judge can issue an order naming them as subject to the order (thus "Selecting them&quot .

Sorry, that the Judge "Selected" the counseling is to broad a term to exclude that the counselor was picked by the Mother.

[jwirr]

117. Evidence - you are still suspecting. When a judge directs

a defendant to go to AA that is selecting the counselor. So they do know what they are selecting. The article stated the judge was the one that specified Christian counseling. Until I see something to contradict what actually happened I will take that explanation.

Do you live in this area? You seem to think that all areas would have acted the same. Even our SCOTUS does not all act the same way on issues.

[happyslug]

120. AA OPPOSES such Court Orders

AA wants its members to WANT to go to AA meetings, NOT be subject to Court Orders to do so. When an AA Group finds out about such orders, they write to the Judge to stop issuing such orders. Most Judge comply, for the AA position is well known (And the AA NOT being a party to the Court Order could in theory disobey it for ordering the person ordered to the AA meeting out of the meeting).

Please note, unless the AA is named in the Court Order to have someone attend their meeting, the AA can tell someone ORDERED to go to AA meetings that they are NOT permitted to attend the AA meeting.

Furthermore, it is hard to enforce such orders. AA meetings have NO formal agenda, last names are not used. You do get tokens and other evidence of attendance but you could tell a Judge you did attend a meeting when you did not and there is no way the Judge can show you did not.

Furthermore if you are familiar with the AA, you will realized it is a RELIGIOUS based group, and people have complained about the AA for that reason for decades.

Here are the 12 steps of AA:

THE TWELVE STEPS
OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood
Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our
wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as
we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry
that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this
message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs

http://www.aa.org/

As to the counseling, all I have seen that the COURT ORDERED was Counseling. That the counseling selected was Christian based is from the woman and counselor, but there is no evidence that non-christian base counselors were NOT an option. In my experience it is up to the party to find and pay for a counselor NOT the courts and the courts will do is order Counseling and that the party doing the counseling report to the court that it had been completed.

[progree]

143. Baloney. A.A. actively facilitates coerced attendance

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

A.A.® Guidelines
Cooperating with Court, D.W.I. and Similar Programs
from G.S.O., Box 459, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163
http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/mg-05_coopwithcourt.pdf

where it is suggested that A.A. members create local Cooperation With the Professional Community (C.P.C.) committees and provide the courts with a list of open A.A. meetings. And suggesting ways that A.A. groups and members can help enforce court-ordered attendance, by signing attendance slips for example, and even suggesting other schemes for verifying coercee attendance for groups that don't want to sign attendance slips (See section "E. Proof of attendance at A.A. meetings.&quot . In other words, enrolling A.A. members to act as agents of government.

[font color = blue]>>AA wants its members to WANT to go to AA meetings, NOT be subject to Court Orders to do so. When an AA Group finds out about such orders, they write to the Judge to stop issuing such orders. Most Judge comply, for the AA position is well known (And the AA NOT being a party to the Court Order could in theory disobey it for ordering the person ordered to the AA meeting out of the meeting). <<[/font]

Sounds fictional to me, based on my experience and in innumerable A.A. and online groups where we discuss these things.

[font color = blue]>>Please note, unless the AA is named in the Court Order to have someone attend their meeting, the AA can tell someone ORDERED to go to AA meetings that they are NOT permitted to attend the AA meeting. <<[/font]

They can, but I've never heard that happen.

[font color = blue]>>Furthermore, it is hard to enforce such orders. <<[/font]

No its not. Unless you want to forge your attendance card signatures. Or have others you know sign false statements.

[font color = blue]>>AA meetings have NO formal agenda, last names are not used. You do get tokens and other evidence of attendance but you could tell a Judge you did attend a meeting when you did not and there is no way the Judge can show you did not. <<[/font]

No formal agenda? How about indoctrination into the 12 step cult? And as for "tokens and other evidence of attendance" how about signature cards? Or other means of verifying attendance like described in that pamphlet at the top of this post?

As for not ordering people to A.A., please see #140.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

178. I worked in the court system in my state for several years, and that's not at all how it worked

There were a list of approved counselors, but the Judges essentially assigned them on a rotating basis. Counselor 1 would take the first client, counselor 2 would take the second, etc. As long as they were certified to perform the specific type of counseling being ordered, the next counselor on the list was chosen. I don't know how hard it would have been to request a change, but I honestly never saw it - the judicial system is intimidating to most people, especially the poor, and there are very few who want to risk their freedom over a court order. And the Public Defender system is so over-worked and underpaid that most defendants are lucky to even meet their attorney before attending court for the first time - many only met their attorney in person for the first time at the sentencing (or other adjudication hearing), and there's barely time for the attorney to even explain the process, let alone to advise their client that they may have a choice in counselor.

In my experience, when the court ordered counseling (whether it was one of the regular Magistrate or District Courts, or one of the specialty courts), they'd look on the list to see who was up next and assign them the case. There were exceptions made for cases involving psycho-sexual evaluations or other extreme cases, but otherwise, regular counseling for alcohol or drug addiction or for domestic violence situations or for guardianship/conservatorship cases was divied up among the approved counselors.

I suspect that different jurisdictions do it differently, depending on local or state statutes, budget situations, or political climate, so what you may have experienced is not necessarily the norm in all jurisdictions.

[progree]

83. I suspect what you are describing is true of some judges and some jurisdictions

but not others. Your post sounds like creative speculation about what happened in this particular case.

I've been reading Church and State Magazine for years, and can assure you that not all judges are like that. Its an endless game of whack-a-mole.

[passiveporcupine]

177. No

Her option was to request the Court to permit her to name a different counselor, but instead she just refused to go.

No, she called the court and they didn't get back to her. She even talked to the court and then she refused to go. They did not help her change to a different counselor.

[happyslug]

182. Courts do NOT take phone calls, they want a written petition.

And they want it served on any other litigate, then they will schedule a hearing. At the hearing they will accept a change of counselors.

I suspect this woman's lawyer told her that, but she did NOT want to wait for the hearing. Calling the Judge is NOT going to get you anywhere. The court system does NOT work that way. This woman did not want to work with the court system but wanted it her way and the Judge told her, to follow the rules. i.e file a petition, give a copy to the other side and wait for a hearing date OR due the counseling already scheduled and get it over with.

The courts will accept an alternative, get the other side to agree and present the Judge with a petition all sides agree to, and the Judge will sign it without a hearing. You can NOT do that by a Phone call.

Judges want to make decisions ONLY after hearing all sides and you can NOT do that in a phone call. She did NOT want to wait for a hearing where all sides would be present and she did not want to continue the counseling. She had to choose one or the other but instead she just refused to go. The Counselor report that lack of attendance, the Judge then scheduled a hearing, and gave all sides notice of the hearing and at the hearing the Judge told her either file a petition for modification of the existing order OR go to the already agreed to sessions AND until she did one or the other, the father ended up with the children, for he looks like he was obeying Court Orders.

That appears to be what happened in this case, this woman did not want to follow what the Court had ordered and did not want to wait to get another counselor. Sorry, she made this mess and it is up to her to correct it. She has the right to complain but her complaints sound like someone upset about being force to do what she did not want to do, but refused to do offer any alternatives. She wanted the JUDGE to set another counselor and the Judge told her that is up to her to do. She did not want to hear that and is complaining about it.

[passiveporcupine]

183. When they didn't reply to her, she did take it back to court

At least that is what she said in the video.

But I'm sure you know better. Since you weren't there. Your eyes and ears are closed on this issue. You've totally made up your mind about something you know very little about.

[happyslug]

75. Where is the FATHER's side of this argument??? Where is the appeal?

Domestic Relations court issue order for counseling all the time. The courts have found out the best are the ones BOTH parents agree to. The problem is when such parents do not agree, then the court has to decide which counselor the couple should go to. The Courts options are limited often to different counselors picked by both sides or a third party if it is clear both side suggestions are unworkable for the other side.

Domestic Relations Courts have found such counseling as a way to minimize conflict in child custody cases, thus the Courts will ORDER parties to attend counseling session. If someone dislikes the session or the counselor, they can always ask the court for a different counselor, but that cost will be put on the party that asked for it AND it must be completed within roughly the time period of the Court Order counseling (And the duty of finding such a counselor will be on the party asking for a different counselor).

The woman's refusal to go to the counseling session is like Kim Davis refusal to issue marriage licenses, both disobeyed DIRECT COURT ORDERS. The proper procedure is to APPEAL such orders NOT to disobey them. The Courts will uphold any sanction of any judge who issue a Court Order that was disobeyed, even if the order was later found to be unconstitutional or illegal (You must obey Court Orders, if you believe they are illegal or unconstitutional you appeal such orders, you do NOT disobey them).

The Classic case is the Case of Martin Luther King in Birmingham Alabama. He was court orders NOT to attend a Civil Rights Rally, he attended the Rally anyway and was arrested for disobeying the Court Order. He had also appealed that Court Order and that Order had been dismissed as unconstitutional on appeal, but that was AFTER he had disobeyed the Court Order and sentenced to Jail for disobeying the Court Order. Martin Luther King's sentence for disobeying a court order (that had been held to be unconstitutional) was UPHELD on appeal up to and including the US Supreme Court. In that set of appeals, the issue was NOT the Court Order itself, but the failure to obey it. The courts will punish anyone who disobeys an order, even if the order is illegal. The Courts position is you should APPEAL the court order NOT disobey it.

What this woman should have done was file a motion with the trial judge that the sessions were harmful and violating her first amendment rights of freedom of religion and if that failed, to appeal that decision. That is the proper procedure and most trial judges do NOT want to be reversed on appeal will consider providing a different counselor, if the woman would suggested one. Refusing to go to the COURT ORDER session was NOT an option, but asking the court to appoint someone else was.

Sorry, the more I look into this case, this woman took it on herself to DISOBEY a court order and then was shocked when the Judge did what a Judge can do when someone disobeys his orders, took her kids away. The Woman DID not tell the Judge that the sessions were NOT working out for she was uncomfortable with them. The Woman did not suggest another counselor. Instead the woman refused to go till the Judge took her kids away. Then the woman did finish the sessions, again NOT asking the Judge to appoint someone else and taped them to show their religious content. I suspect she wanted to show the Judge the Religious nature of the Counseling, but the Judge then said what alternatives the woman was offering, she was silent. The Woman did not really want to go to ANY counseling sessions and used religion as a prop to attack being ordered to go to such sessions.

Sorry, my experience as a practicing Domestic Relations Lawyer is this has NOTHING to do with religion but someone who disliked the idea of having to go to counseling sessions in the first place (and paying for them). This was confirmed when the woman objected to going to the public library for such sessions (I have had some counselors do this, for it saves them the cost of setting up an office or renting a motel room for the session).

Now, doing this at the library would have been grounds to ask for another counselor but again NOT asked for, I suspect for all of the other counselors charged more for their services. I suspect the woman did NOT want to pay more then what this Counselor was charging but then complained when it included religion. You get what you are willing to pay for and if you want a discounted service be prepared for any costs involved.

Now, for the argument, why have this counselor on any list of counselors? She is probably the chearpest and thus most popular on the list. No one is being forced to go to this counselor unless they select her personally. I suspect the counselor was selected by both sides attorneys for this counselor is the cheapest on the list. I suspect this woman's attorney told her to go to the 10 sessions and get it over with. The Judge issued his ordered based on what both sides had agreed to. Thus this woman "picked" this counselor and hated having to go to such sessions and picked apart anything the counselor suggested that her attorney told her was NOT essential to the sessions (Thus we hear of Religion and use of the Public Library but NOT how to handle problems that comes up with children being divided between two children).

Sorry, based on my experiences I suspect the problem is this woman did not like going to ANY counseling sessions and just attack the parts that she believed would get her good press. She did NOT take the option of filing an appeal or offering some other counselor, instead complained to the ACLU and the local news. I am sorry, this woman had options but refused to take them for I suspect her attorney told her go to the sessions, get it done and it be over with. I suspect her attorney told her if she disliked this counselor, go to someone else but be prepared to pay their higher fees, fees she objected to paying for she did not believe she needed this counseling.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Oh please.

None of your speculation excuses forcing an atheist to go to a Christian counselor who includes prayer and belief in god as part of the counseling.

Thankfully the ACLU doesn't agree with your blame the victim mentality.

[happyslug]

91. My experience is the MOTHER SELECTED HER COUNSELOR

That is the practice of the Courts, the PARTIES PICK THEIR OWN COUNSELORS. The court ONLY order Counseling. Once a Counselor is picked the Court will enter an order to that the party MUST go to that Counselor and finish the counseling sessions, who in turn will file with the court a paper saying the sessions were completed. If someone dislikes the counselor they themselves had selected, they could ask the court to appoint someone else, but it is up to the party to find the new counselor NOT the courts.

Thus this counselor was one PICKED By the Mother, who later disliked going to the sessions. Religion, I suspect was only one of many reasons, the main reason is the mother did not believe she needed such counseling (Such refusal is not uncommon, thus the tendency for the courts to ORDER such counseling).

My point is the proper procedure was to ask the court to change the Order to a different counselor, but it had to be one who agreed to counsel and been approved by the court (Which is also the requirements of the counselor this Mother is objecting to) AND found by the Mother (Again just like the first counselor).

Thus the Court only ORDER her to go to Counselor, one of her own selection. The Courts did NOT select this counselor, the Mother did (or more accurately I suspect her attorney). The Mother is now complaining about being ORDERED to go to counseling that she did not believe she needed. No one ordered her to go to a religious counselor, she selected this one herself. That is the practice in the courts, for the Courts can NOT order a Counselor to see someone unless such a Counselor agrees, thus when the Court Order for Counseling is entered, all the parties first have to agree to it.

Thus since this was an agreed order, no appeal. The Mother's only option was to find another counselor and get the Court Order changed. Instead of doing that she disobeyed a court order and then lost her kids till she obeyed the order.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Your experience doesn't count for jack when you use it to blame the mother without evidence.

You are so eager to blame the mother in this case I have to wonder what ax you're grinding.

I think the ACLU lawyer is more objective and that's all that matters, not how little you think of the mother whom you've never met.

ACLU executive director Peter Simonson said, “No one should be put in a position where they are forced to accept training or therapy that violates their own religious beliefs and morals.”

Christian extremists who can't keep their god to themselves have no place doing court appointed counseling.

[happyslug]

106. I do NOT see anything that the Court ORDER religious teaching,

The problem appears to be this was the counselor SELECTED by the mother, who later found out this counselor used religion. As I have said before, the proper thing to do was to ask the Court to name a different counselor, one the Mother was willing to pay for, but the Mother did not do that, instead she disobeyed the court order that she had agreed to.

The Court ordered her to complete the sessions, which she did and received her kids back at that point. She could have opt to go to some another counselor, but she decided otherwise. Thus from the Court's point of view, the Courts did NOT ORDER the Mother to do anything she had NOT agreed to do. The Courts do NOT decide which counselors people go to, the courts leave that up to the parties themselves to select (Through the Courts are selective as to who can be a counselor, but it is a minimum requirement rule, i.e. certain subjects must be covered, certain number of hours etc).

I suspect the Mother's attorney suggested this counselor, for she is the low cost provider of such services. That is the practice in most of the US, the Client's attorney suggest someone (or a list of such counsellors) and the client agrees to name that person (or someone on the list provided to them) as their counselor. The court then enters an Order to reflect that selection.

Thus, except by accepting the name of the counselor from the Mother's Attorney, the courts had nothing to do with selecting the counselor. All the court did was entered an order for counseling and when the Mother failed to complied took her kids away till she did what she agreed to do. The Mother could have opt for another counselor but she did not take up that option, instead finished what she had agreed to do.

As to the ACLU statement, that is NOT the law, for the simple reason the Courts have long ruled that Congress can force people into the Military (the Draft) "where they are forced to accept training or therapy that violates their own religious beliefs and morals" and that does not violate the First Amendment (The Religious exemption from the Draft is a product of Statute only NOT the First Amendment).

The Actual constitutional rule is does this further a specific religion OR suppress a specific religion? (Atheism is classified as a religion for both purposes). Giving people the right to select their own counselors does neither, thus no violation of the First Amendment.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Do you have a problem with an atheist being forced to write an essay titled "Who is God to me?"

[happyslug]

110. As I said before that was her choice

As I pointed out, this counselor was one she picked, the courts do NOT pick the counselor. I suspect her lawyer mentioned this counselor for she was know to be cheap, fair and quick. Thus the ten sessions were over within a month.

If this woman did not want to do what this counselor wanted, all she had to do was name someone else as her counselor and the courts would have approved the change. Now the other counselors probably had office hours away from the court house, thus she would have to travel to those offices, taking days off work to do so. The Scheduling would have been measured in two to three months instead of the less then the month mentioned in the article. Thus I suspect her attorney told her to finish up with this counselor, for it be over in a month, as oppose to going to someone else, where she would have to wait two to three months to get her children back. It is a tough choice, but the courts will look upon it as the choice of the Mother NOT something they are imposing on her.

Sorry, I see where she feels she was "Forced" to comply with something she rejected, but the Courts will rule that was her choice, she had the option of going to someone else, who probably had a more filled calendar and not get her in for months. Remember Counseling is done by PRIVATE ENTERPRISE not the Courts and not the Government.

One thing I can say about religious base counselors is they are more willing to work around people's schedule then non religious based counselors and why they are popular with the courts. You take the good with the bad when you opt for one, in this case we are hearing the bad parts.

[beam me up scottie]

111. It she refused to comply she would have lost her kids, she was forced to write it.

she had the option of going to someone else

You've already admitted you don't know the facts so why do you keep telling me what she should have done?

[happyslug]

144. She always had the right to get her counseling done by someone else.

The problem, I suspect, her attorney said complete the program already scheduled and you have your children back in a month, opt for another counselor, you will not get your children back till that counseling is finished, which may be months away.

Thus she had a choice, a choice she disliked but a choice. She is protesting her choice, which will NOT help her case in front of the Judge. I suspect the Judge did not pick this counselor but her attorney did for the counselor was known to be acceptable to the Judge, quick to schedule and quick to process a client through the required sessions and cheap (and able to do the counseling around the schedule of the client).

Once the counseling started it was to late to go with someone else. I suspect the attorney had no other client who complained of this counselor, for the attorney's other clients all understood it was a series of sessions they had to comply with and thus took what occur to get it over with as quickly as possible. This woman refused to do the same and we are hearing her complain of it.

I pity her attorney, Judges like people who cooperate with the Court AND the other parent. The Number one reason people lose custody of their children to the other parent is when the parent interferes with visitation of the other parent. The Court's want the children to be involved with BOTH parents and refusing to work with the other will lead to a switch in custody. That counseling was ordered indicates problems with this custody and visitation case, problems one should avoid if you want to retain custody.

We may hear of this case again, some people never learn to work with other people and that sounds like what is happening here. Her ex-husband may be worse, but he is avoiding the media which the Judge will remember that as evidence the Father is looking out for the best interest of the Children by keeping their name out of the Media. She is NOT helping herself by making this a media issue and that will NOT be looked upon nicely the Judge.

[beam me up scottie]

151. I pity your clients if you base your judgment on the suspicion that women are liars.

You have no idea what the facts are but you're blaming the mother calling her a liar, a bad mother, a vengeful ex.

She couldn't possibly be telling the truth, amirite?

[Curmudgeoness]

121. Wow, you have said that she "selected" this counselor at least ten times,

but you have no idea whether that statement is true or not. You "assume" it is true because of your experience, which I doubt was in the same court as this one. It is possible that there were no other choices, but you keep insisting that there must have been. In fact, you have made so many assumptions about what happened here that your argument collapses. You have no idea whether this woman was just trying to get out of counseling, but you insinuate that.

But besides that, the whole point is that NO court should use any religion peddling counselors on their approved lists. If a counselor is unable to help someone without invoking a god, they are incompetent. And if the courts do have a list of approved counselors, some of which are going to shove their religion down the patient's throat, then I would say that it should be specified when given that list that this counselor is "Christian based" or "Islam based" or whatever religion they are hard-selling. No one should find this out after they have made the selection and paid for the first session.

I will make an assumption of my own and say that you are a Christian who thinks that there is nothing wrong with imposing your beliefs on others, since your beliefs are right and everyone else is wrong. But that is just an assumption, so it isn't worth much.

[progree]

112. a fictional character invented by primitive pre-scientific people to explain things like lightning

and volcanos. And then I can go on about how each group of tribes invented their own warrior god, battling other groups who had their own invented warrior god. And one that insisted we don't eat shellfish. And and and...

(Brief digression to A.A. and a couple of its Twelve Steps: )

[font color = blue]Step 3 - Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.[/font]

Step 3 is especially problematical to me. How can I force myself to turn my will and life over to a fictional character invented by primitive people? (And why would I even strive to stoop to such stupidity?)

[font color = blue]Step 11 - Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.[/font]

Again, how can I seek to have conscious contact with a fictional character and pray for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry it out?

107. Do you have a problem with an atheist being forced to write an essay titled "Who is God to me?"

I don't think they would like what I'd write.

[beam me up scottie]

113. I don't think they'd like what I'd write either.

Although I don't know if I would be willing to give up a chance of getting my kids back to tell the truth.

That's what's so galling about this, the counselor KNEW she was an atheist and forced her to do these things.

The mother was the victim, not the villain as the lawyer upthread proclaims.

[progree]

115. Yup. Church and State Magazine is full of cases like this. (au.org)

I was court-ordered to attend A.A. in 2007 (a religious program according to 4 out of 4 of the federal appeals courts, and 2 out of 2 of the state supreme courts that have heard these cases) . If I said no, I'd almost certainly have gotten a lot worse punishment, including jail time.

# 12-Step_Coercion_Watch - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch

[beam me up scottie]

116. I don't know what I'd do if I was ordered to AA.

I suppose I'd have to comply or face the same consequences as you.

I was in the Marine Corps and had to attend church services in boot camp so I understand how much it must have sucked to have to go along in AA.

[progree]

118. Ahh, the Marines. Well you asked for this... <g>

A video of U.S. Marines singing, dancing and worshiping God at Camp Pendleton in California

as you can see a few here and there who are just standing and not taking part --

"There's no God like Jehovah! ... Hooah"

Some of the lyrics include:

"These are the days of Elijah
Declaring the word of the Lord, yeah
And these are the days of Your servant, Moses
Righteousness being restored

"These are the days of great trials
Of famine and darkness and sword
Still we are the voice in the desert crying
Prepare ye the way of the Lord!"

[beam me up scottie]

119. Ugh.

I served with a few atheists but we had to stay in the closet. More militant members who believe in strict adherence to God, Country and Corps don't appreciate Marines who don't share their devotion.

[happyslug]

124. How did we get on the AA?

Someone commented on being Court Ordered to the AA and I pointed out the AA OPPOSES such Court orders AND the AA had strong religious attributes (Which most Courts know of and this will NOT ORDER someone to go to AA, but it is strongly encouraged for it does help some people).

That was the extent of the discussion of the AA. I listed the 12 steps to show the AA had strong religious attributes but then pointed out most courts will NOT order someone to go to AA.

[progree]

140. Number one - A.A. facilitates coerced attendance. Two: Most courts in Minnesota do

Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

order people to A.A. directly or indirectly (see below), or it sure as hell is very prevalent.

[font color = blue]>>Someone commented on being Court Ordered to the AA and I pointed out the AA OPPOSES such Court orders<<[/font]

A.A. OPPOSES such court orders? Really? See:

A.A.® Guidelines
Cooperating with Court, D.W.I. and Similar Programs
from G.S.O., Box 459, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163
http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/mg-05_coopwithcourt.pdf
[font color = red]On Edit fixed above URL--^^[/font]

where it is suggested that A.A. members create local Cooperation With the Professional Community (C.P.C.) committees and provide the courts with a list of open A.A. meetings. And suggesting ways that A.A. groups and members can help enforce court-ordered attendance, by signing attendance slips for example, and even suggesting other schemes for verifying coercee attendance for groups that don't want to sign attendance slips (See section "E. Proof of attendance at A.A. meetings.&quot . In other words, enrolling A.A. members to act as agents of government.

[font color = blue]>>AND the AA had strong religious attributes<<[/font]

Good for you for recognizing that. A lot of people don't, that's why I had to write http://www.democraticunderground.com/1144174#post32

[font color = blue]>> (Which most Courts know of and thus will NOT ORDER someone to go to AA, but it is strongly encouraged for it does help some people ... then pointed out most courts will NOT order someone to go to AA. ). <<[/font]

(bold and underlining added by me in the above). The key word is "most", and even that is dubious, as it is the default to order people into A.A., and most people who have never been around A.A. or 12 step programs don't know about its religiosity, and the A.A. group will insist they aren't religious because you can substitute a lightbulb or a tree for "God" etc. etc. So most newbies will go along with this for awhile anyway.

My and our experience is they either order people to AA/NA, or they pull a cootie-wootie-woo, like order people into a treatment program for evaluation and treatment and require that one follow all of the treatment facility's suggestions. Included in the suggestions of the treatment program was attending a weekly A.A. meeting for a year and to get a 12 step sponsor. Even though I made my atheism clear, as well as my objection to A.A.

If somebody has lots of money (lawyers don't do this kind of thing for free) and determination, and can upend their lives while dealing with the other conditions (like not having a car) and problems and requirements, while maintaining their job and family, then yes they can object and risk getting crapped on even more and even sent to jail. It happens, I can assure you.

All this depressing stuff is discussed at 12 Step Coercion Watch: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch (sorry, registration is required to view it)

Lot of other stories at aaAgnostica.org

[font color = blue]>> How did we get on the AA? <<[/font]

I don't know. Some others brought it up first. But it certainly is a prime example of religious coercion by the courts.

[onager]

152. I didn't have any choice in the matter.

And this was in Los Angeles, not exactly a rural Jesus-monopolized backwater.

Judge ordered me to attend AA due to a DUI (I was young and stupid).

I went to the first meeting, where some Dollar Store Pat Robertson hogged the microphone and "shared" his road-to-Damascus...or maybe Wal-Mart...moment. For what felt like about 3 days. Didn't take long for me to get enough of that.

I SPECIFICALLY WENT AND ASKED ABOUT AA-TYPE MEETINGS FOR NON-RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS. (Sorry for the caps, didn't want anybody to miss that.)

One of the women in charge said she had heard of a court-approved, non-religious meeting in "North Hollywood Park." But she also heard that they were "a bunch of Satanists."

Well. That was interesting. I'm an atheist, not a Satanist. But that sounded like a lot more fun than the meeting where I was stuck.

At the time I lived in walking distance of Amelia Earhart Park in North Hollywood (which is what that woman meant). Went to the library there all the time, so I knew the people who worked there. And figured the library was where the meetings would be held. I'd never heard of any Satanists in the 'hood. Unless you were a Fundie Xian and counted North Hollywood's large gay community with the devil-worshippers. Which you probably would. But I digress. Again...

Went and asked the librarians about this meeting of non-religious AA types. Or possibly the baby-eating but temporarily tee-totaling Satanist cabal operating right under their noses. Nobody knew what I was talking about.

So in the end I stuck with the AA meetings, just to get done with it. It wasn't so bad once I found another non-believer who attended. At least we could sit there and eye-roll together about all the humble-bragging Xians.

That guy's arrest story is worth repeating. He was drunk and on a motorcycle: "I left a party and was headed up Laurel Canyon Boulevard. Cops pulled me over and asked me to get off the bike. When I tried to get off, I fell down and pulled the bike on top of me. The cop said - "We may have a little bit of a problem here."

[Lordquinton]

129. Illegal orders should always be disobeyed

Or you are complicit in breaking the law.

And who cares about the father's side? He has all the cards in this game, and probably relished that his atheist wife was being forced into christian counseling, he took advantage of an illegal order and stole her kids, what a scum of a human being he is.

(See how your argument sounds?)

[beam me up scottie]

130. +1

I have a feeling our lawyer friend has an ax to grind that has more to do with ex wives than atheists.

Seems awfully invested in vilifying the mother for some reason.

[Lordquinton]

133. I haven't seen such leaps of logic Since

Well, since I was in the other room, really...

[beam me up scottie]

135. They do remind me of some other folks now that you mention it...

Obviously the atheist must be LYING about her reasons for refusing to comply.

[Lordquinton]

136. The husband and children have been reduced to barely a mention

while this woman seems to have 100% control over the situation, and masterfully crafted it to what we see.

[beam me up scottie]

137. It was part of her plan to... to ... what was it she wanted to do again?

Get even with her husband by having him get sole custody?

[happyslug]

139. If you break the law, be prepared to take the consequences, and that includes Court Orders...

Martin Luther King did that in the 1960s and ended up in Jail. The Court order he violated was illegal but his conviction for violating it was upheld on appeal, This woman decided to disobey an Order and ended up losing her children. There are costs involved when disobeying a Court Order. King gladly spent his time in jail, this woman did not like losing her children for a month that was the result of her complaint of the Court Order.

If she disliked going to the counselor, she had the option of going to someone else (and getting the order changed to reflect the switch in counselors), but instead she just disobeyed the Order. The Courts will NOT tolerate such a Contempt, she should feel lucky she did not go to jail.

[beam me up scottie]

145. How do you know she had the option and chose to disobey the order instead?

What is your problem with this woman?

According to you she's a liar, a bad mother and a criminal.

[rhett o rick]

168. If you break the law be prepared to pay the consequences. Agree so far. But you don't have to like

the consequences. Your example of King isn't fair because he was being a martyr. You say the courts will NOT tolerate such contempt but there is always a higher court and hopefully they will recognize the violation of the Constitution.

[jeff47]

171. And that includes the judge. The judge broke the law by forcing an atheist to pray.

If she disliked going to the counselor, she had the option of going to someone else

Read the reporting before you look stupid.

Oops. Too late.

[AlbertCat]

78. "The meaning in my life is to know..."

That's great....

but is counseling really telling everyone what works for the councelor?

Religion is really a big ego trip, and little else.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Just imagine the kind of counseling she did when she worked for that radical anti-choice group.

Christian extremists who can't keep their god to themselves have no place doing court appointed counseling.

[valerief]

86. This story disgusts me. The total disregard of separation of church and state by the courts

and elected officials disgusts me to no end.

I understand religion is a tool of the PTB to manipulate the masses to act against their best interests and to act in the best interests of the PTB, and I still get disgusted with stories like this.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Agreed.

If this was a Christian mom who was forced to listen to Muslim prayers and get counseled about how they believed in the wrong god the msm and right wing politicians would be all over this.

[valerief]

134. Bingo!

[Arugula Latte]

96. Chilling. This forced religious nuttery has got to stop.

[beam me up scottie]

99. The mother was forced to write an essay "Who is God to me?".

What would happen if a Christian mother was forced to write an essay "Who is Allah to me?" as part of court mandated counseling?

[Arugula Latte]

102. Yeah, Huckabee would personally march into the counseling place

and smack the pen out of her hand.

[KyleMcShades]

131. Judges keep getting...

more and more corrupt all the time. Something is seriously wrong with our Judicial system.

[beam me up scottie]

132. I agree.

I hope I never have to deal with the court system again.

[V0ltairesGh0st]

155. Religion does not trump secular law.

If i am ever called as a witness or juror ... There isn't anyone who will ever convince me to swear on a BIBLE for any reason. I'll Go Kim Davis in reverse , except I'll actually be right, and the difference would be i could sue and have the full support of law and win.

[beam me up scottie]

156. Hear hear!

If anything I will swear on a copy of the Constitution.

[jeff47]

172. They actually have an "alternative" swearing-in.

For atheists, non-Christians, and people who's religion will not allow them to "swear" on anything.

Or at least, there is supposed to be one. YMMV when it comes time to use it.

[Babel_17]

162. This isn't how you win converts

Nobody was forced to hear Jesus deliver his message. The idea of Pilate ordering Jews to "go listen to that Jesus guy, and learn how to chill" is alternatingly hilarious, and highly disturbing.

A person's relationship to the idea of God is not up to Caesar. Caesar has no business ordering obeisance to God being part of rendering ones obligation to Caesar.

That's in the Bible, as well as the Constitution.

[beam me up scottie]

173. It sure does make enemies.

If I wasn't already an atheist when I joined the Corps having religion shoved down my throat would probably have turned me into one.

[EEO]

165. Look for the money trail between the judge and the "counselor."

[beam me up scottie]

174. Both should be out of jobs.

The more I think about this the angrier I get.

[EEO]

179. Same here. I have been an atheist for nearly two decades now, and these things really piss me off.

It speak to the insecurity of the religious and their beliefs. They need to constantly have them reinforced and be accepted by others.

[senz]

180. Arrogance and force are not Christian.

It amazes me how many self-styled "Christians" think they have the right to ride roughshod over others. Jesus could have done that if he'd wanted to, but he didn't, ever. His major opponents were the religious authorities of his day, the Scribes and Pharisees, whom he excoriated repeatedly for their heavy-handedness and hypocrisy. Too bad so many of his modern-day followers are equally clueless.

Our government should protect atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Hindus, and others from being bullied by those who call themselves Christians.

[Enthusiast]

185. Obnoxious and infuriating. Yes, indeed.

[DetlefK]

186. My "What-does-God-mean-to-you" homework:

- I began drifting away from religion when my religion-teacher tried to explain us that worshipping God is more important than helping people.

- Per his own biography "The Bible", God is an immoral and mentally disturbed person that should not be worshipped.

- God is a concept that was invented to explain natural phenomena because Bronze-Age people had the mindset that actions can only happen if there is somebody with an intent behind it. (And it took until the Renaissance to move to a mindset of "unthinking nature".)

- I have never seen proof for God's existence and Pascal's wager is based on the faulty premise that there is only one religion in the whole world.

- There is a theological proof that us finite humans cannot possibly tell an infinite god apart from a finite impostor.

- I have found a theological proof that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, timeless (as a combination of the attributes omnipotent and omniscient) and meddling with human affairs at the same time.