Would you support disabled Christians, Muslims or Hindu?

[JRKH]

Simplest of replies -

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Be the Good Samaritan.

End of Dilemma

James

 

[strngrnrth]

That next week, the Catholics were on duty, so you had to listen to the Catholics tell you all about how wrong not only the Baptist church is, but also the JW’s, and how much better theirs is before you could enter? Then we follow that up the next week with the Mormons? And on, and on, and on?

Remember that the people you are having to repeatedly say “no” to (and potentially make angry) in order to get to your church may also control your access to things like leaving the house, even going to the bathroom, getting out of bed or eating.

At what point does a person who may have a mental illness or cognitive disability become hopelessly confused about how to stand up for his or her rights to worship in the way they please or say “yes” to one of the groups just to make them happy or get them to shut up?

I would, of course, not get get angry over it. And I am fairly sure I project a calm, caring demeanor. The patients I have worked with say they like me and look forward to seeing me. Also, I don’t mean I would require a full audience for a long sermon, only that I would not feel OK bringing someone to a service where I felt the person’s most fundamental need was not met unless I at least mentioned where my lifetime of examining evidence has brought me. I’d never require a severely disabled person to sit and argue with me. I’d just let it slip into the conversation on the way.
In the field, we disagree with patients about what is good for them very commonly. If a woman believes she hasn’t eaten all day and demands something high in sugar, and she is diabetic and actually had a full meal ten minutes ago, I have a responsibility to lead her to the truth or distract her. To do otherwise would be harmful, perhaps deadly, to her.
This life is only a practice run for the real thing. One of the main reasons I have chosen to work with people in crisis is to reach them with the Gospel. I am very tactful and careful about it, but I value souls more than I value my job. I have training in many other fields. I’m here because I believe God wants me here as a witness where one is sometimes desperately needed.

 

[KarenNC]

I would, of course, not get get angry over it. And I am fairly sure I project a calm, caring demeanor. The patients I have worked with say they like me and look forward to seeing me. Also, I don’t mean I would require a full audience for a long sermon, only that I would not feel OK bringing someone to a service where I felt the person’s most fundamental need was not met unless I at least mentioned where my lifetime of examining evidence has brought me. I’d never require a severely disabled person to sit and argue with me. I’d just let it slip into the conversation on the way.
In the field, we disagree with patients about what is good for them very commonly. If a woman believes she hasn’t eaten all day and demands something high in sugar, and she is diabetic and actually had a full meal ten minutes ago, I have a responsibility to lead her to the truth or distract her. To do otherwise would be harmful, perhaps deadly, to her.
This life is only a practice run for the real thing. One of the main reasons I have chosen to work with people in crisis is to reach them with the Gospel. I am very tactful and careful about it, but I value souls more than I value my job. I have training in many other fields. I’m here because I believe God wants me here as a witness where one is sometimes desperately needed.

So you are defending proselytizing to folks who are, at minimum, delusional? I had held out some hope that you at least meant folks with physical disabilities but who were mentally competent.

I fully understand about the issues of being “in the field” as I spent over 16 years working with folks with all sorts of developmental disabiliites in capacities ranging from advocacy to direct care in an ICF-MR group home for folks with severe/profound MR and severe physical disabilities.

There is a line, and to attempt to impose your religious views on others who are under your care in such a situation crosses it. I don’t care how “tactful” you are about it. The same would be true of anyone of any religion. It is an abuse of power and an abuse of trust.

Just to be clear, there is a world of difference between what this poster is advocating (actual active and deliberate proselytization to someone who holds a different religious view) and someone living their faith, perhaps wearing religious jewelry, a headscarf, etc. as they go about their job. The two are not even in the same ballpark.

I somehow doubt that your employer hired you and your fellow workers with the expectation that everyone was to feel free to proselytize the clients anytime they felt like it for the religion of their choice. If your main purpose in being in your job is to proselytize rather than do the job you were hired for in the manner in which that job is expected to be performed by all employees regardless of their religious beliefs, I hope that you have had the honesty to inform your employers of that fact. Given that your described methods seem to fall more into the category of stealth proselytizing to people who have been entrusted to your care for entirely different reasons and who may not be competent to deal with such behavior on their own, I am not confident of that.

I will say that such behavior would be against the policies of every agency with which I have worked.

I strongly suggest that you seek employment in a religious setting that matches your views and where you will not be faced with a choice between your need to proselytize and doing your job in a way that actually respects the rights and dignity of the people with whom you are entrusted.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

On the whole it seems that most people who have answered would support a person of another belief and I find that a message of great hope. If we go down this road it brings diversity together and it gives the chance to build bridges of peace.

However there also seems a slight opposition to this in the way some people seem to favour having some homes just for Muslims, some for Christians, some for atheists and this seems to avoid the responsibility of coping with diversity.

Which is the greater way forwards?

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship

Eric

 

[KarenNC]

However there also seems a slight opposition to this in the way some people seem to favour having some homes just for Muslims, some for Christians, some for atheists and this seems to avoid the responsibility of coping with diversity.

Which is the greater way forwards?

Well, as the “some” seems to equate to me in this instance , let me clarify.

It’s a complicated situation. In an ideal world, people with disabilities, even those with the most severe ones, would have an equal amount of ability to exercise their human rights and freedom of association in this area as do those without disabilities.

In our society, folks without disabilities are, for the most part, free to choose whether they want to live in the same dwelling 24/7 with others who share their religion or those who do not. This is not equivalent to “opposition to or avoiding the responsibility of coping with diversity”. If you choose to room with or marry someone, for instance, who is or is not of your same religion it is unlikely that you are doing so primarily because you support or oppose diversity. It is because you are seeking someone who will be the most compatible with you for the most intimate of living situations.

For those with disabilities, this sort of choice is often hampered by economics. The unfortunate reality is that resources to provide support are finite, populations of folks with disabilities severe enough to require support and to live separately from their families is small compared to the general population, and many of these faiths are minority religions in many areas. As a minority religion, the number of adherents may be small to extremely small, and the number of folks within that religion in that area who require these levels of support are a small portion of that.

Religion is also not the only factor that needs consideration. Level of support varies with level of disability, as does the pool of possible roommates. Most folks who have disablities are likely to fall into the category of mildly or moderately disabled and need less support than someone with severe disabilities. That means that the pool of possible folks needing a similar level of care shrinks the above numbers even more.

The logistics and economic realities of providing support, especially to those with the most severe disabilities, can be very daunting. The staffing requirements may put limits on one’s ability to provide as much individual freedom as one would like to go out to services. In that case one can seek other arrangements, such as inviting clergy from their religion to come to the person.

That means that currently those with the money to afford it are more likely to be able to pick and choose among a much wider range of options than those who cannot. Those with the money to afford it can, for instance, enter retirement homes or nursing homes or supported living arrangements run by their religious association, giving them easy access to on site religious services, knowing that any religious dietary requirements are followed, holidays will be observed, etc. without having to work for or plan it. Those who do not have the money will usually end up in state run situations where they have much less control over their situation.

The fact that many folks have already had their freedom of choice in this matter abrogated by economics makes it even more incumbent upon the people who provide support to make every reasonable effort to see that they have a truly free choice in terms of attending religious services and practicing their religion. That means the freedom to attend the services of their religion without having to run the gauntlet of proselytization in order to get transportation. It also means that “providing residents with access to religious services” is not adequately met by taking everyone to the Baptist church down the street every week just because it is close or the staff wants to go or many of the residents are Christian (though they may be Catholic, etc), especially if some of the them are Muslim. It also doesn’t mean that you schlep everyone to the mosque every Friday and expect them to participate in services because one person is Muslim.

It is also worth noting that freedom “of” religion does not equate to freedom “from” ever having to hear mention of another religion.

No one ever promised that treating individuals (whether they have disabilities or not) as individuals with equal dignity and respect for their human rights would be easy or convenient. That doesn’t release me from my ethical and moral obligation to do so to the best of my ability, however.