Atheist Mom Forced Into Court-Ordered Christian Counseling
Last edited Wed Sep 16, 2015, 07:50 AM - Edit history (1)
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:
= new reply since forum marked as read
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. 
Or a bowl of gonja? 
I was given a little home brew kit for my birthday. Gonna give it a try in a couple months. 
I saw it and actually thought I had changed it before I hit the post button.
I won't blaspheme again! 
From Wikipedia:
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
Ever notice how when some of the worst offenders get caught cheating, lying or stealing it's because they had a "lapse in faith"?
You have to pick your battles and avoiding proselytizers is better for your mental health.
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?
Surreal and scary! Twilight zone level! 
Whole lot of research and information, excellent work.
It's always the uppity atheist's fault.
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" .
Sorry, that the Judge "Selected" the counseling is to broad a term to exclude that the counselor was picked by the Mother.
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." . 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.
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." . 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.
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."
Obviously the atheist must be LYING about her reasons for refusing to comply.
If anything I will swear on a copy of the Constitution.
