What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Rifqa Bary Update: Judge drags heels on necessary order for immigration filing

There was a hearing today on the Rifqa Bary case in Ohio. Judge Gill is being, to put it mildly, obstructive on a motion from Rifqa's lawyers that reunification with her parents is impossible. This order is necessary before Rifqa turns 18 (on August 10) in time for her lawyers to apply for a special juvenile immigration status for her. The judge refused to rule on the motion today, stated that she would not rule on it without a hearing, and it sounds like she was snippy to Rifqa's lawyer who pled for an expedited hearing. The date next month has not been reported. The judge apparently made repeated statements today to the effect that Rifqa's own lawyers are not to "interfere" in the counseling process going on with Rifqa and her parents (so far, separately). The implication is apparently the extremely silly one that Rifqa's lawyers are somehow preventing her from being happily reunited with her parents before she turns 18, when in fact Rifqa is and always has been adamantly opposed even to talking with them.

From all that I can tell, Rifqa would be subject to deportation at 18 if some sort of "immigration relief" paperwork had not at least been submitted at that time. Being subject to deportation is not, of course, the same thing as being actually deported, but it would make it hard for her to make a living here in the U.S. It's also unclear what her lawyers would do in that case and how they would then seek immigration help for her. In other words, what is their backup plan? They are not able to discuss this because of a gag order on the case. I only hope they have a backup plan, since the judge is dragging her heels, apparently wanting to pretend that the immigration issue can be kept strictly separate from the "family counseling" issue.

Rifqa's parents' lawyer was his usual charming and sinister self today. He had the chutzpah to imply that Rifqa's parents have already applied for "immigration relief" for her as part of their family, which appears (according to Rifqa's own lawyer) to be impossible, since they do not presently have custody. One wonders if he really believes that she would agree to go back to her parents for these last months before she is (God willing) free of them forever in order to gain the benefit of their immigration filing! Tarazi (the parents' lawyer) also sneered at Rifqa's own lawyer, Angela Lloyd, asking if she is an immigration lawyer. Yes, she does have a specialty in this area, which Tarazi must know.

All rather disturbing. One could wish that the judge's idea of being "tough" (on whom?) did not include heel-dragging at this important time.

Comments (36)

From all that I can tell, Rifqa would be subject to deportation at 18 if some sort of "immigration relief" paperwork had not at least been submitted at that time. Being subject to deportation is not, of course, the same thing as being actually deported, but it would make it hard for her to make a living here in the U.S.

It was my understanding that Rifqa Bary's parents are here illegally, has this been confirmed? And if the Barys are here illegally then why has nothing been done to bring about their removal from this country? They are exactly the sort of people (shari'ah supremacists) who should not be welcomed here and should have been barred from coming here in the first place. Meanwhile, in more sane times Rifqa Bary would have been granted immediate asylum and thus protected from a probable honor killing, but instead our government and judicial system is more concerned with protect criminal illegal aliens. Considering how inverted our society, and be extension our judicial system, is I wouldn't be surprised if Rifqa Bary was deported back to Sri Lanka, while her parents are allowed to stay in the US.

The judge probably didn't appreciate being put on the spot. if she ruled that reunification is impossible without a hearing that established a record she wouldn't be doing her job (Rifqa's lawyers were only doing their job, and likely expected that the best they were going to get was the hearing).

"They are exactly the sort of people (shari'ah supremacists) who should not be welcomed here and should have been barred from coming here in the first place."

Ummm,then Rifqa wouldn't be here either, she would be in Sri Lanka.

Ummm,then Rifqa wouldn't be here either, she would be in Sri Lanka.

The fact that Rifqa Bary converted to Christianity doesn't negate that the fact that shari'ah supremacists like Bary's parents should not be allowed into this country. I cannot support doing wrong (allowing mass Muslim immigration) so that some possible minor good (a small handful of converts to Christianity) may come of it. The possible, though very rare, good of such situations doesn't come even close to equalizing the bad, much less outweighing it.

What are the odds?

I opened my browser this afternoon to w3tw to check blog posts when a collegue (a new hire) who happened to be sitting next to me saw the site and asked what the story was about Rifqa Bary. I asked him if he knew about the story. He said, "Yes," and asked for the website. I sent him over to Atlas Shrugs (should have given him this site, as well). He then said he knew Rifqa Bary. I thought he meant that he knew of her, but when I asked him, again, he said that he knew her.

What are the odds?

I don't know how he knows her. I might, gently, bring up the subject.

The Chicken

Al, the thing is, accounts of last _month's_ hearing show that Lloyd was trying to put in this motion then, so the judge was hardly being put on the spot now, suddenly. I don't know what happened or how it is that the judge is treating it as though this is the first she's heard of a motion that she declare reunification impossible. Did that motion just get dropped down a memory hole somewhere, or did the judge refuse to allow it to be formally put in (can a judge do that?) last month, or what? The other thing is that Lloyd asked for an expedited hearing today, and the judge refused. Now, the way I look at it, they've been going through this little "counseling for reunification" charade for several months now, and Rifqa's own counselor says it isn't even best for her now so much as to meet her parents face to face (!), so it seems to me like the only point of waiting a month for another hearing is for the judge to prove something or other or to show she won't be pushed or whatever. In other words, a kind of professional pettiness. She could have allowed an expedited hearing sooner.

Daniel, Rifqa can't be handed asylum unless she applies for it. She hasn't. Her lawyers have discouraged the asylum route. No one seems to know if they have this as a backup plan if the judge drags this out too long. There has been a big kerfuffle at Atlas Shrugs positively heaping scorn on Rifqa's lawyers for not applying for asylum in parallel with the present strategy, but they can't defend their strategy because of the gag order. I also don't imagine they want to go telling everybody on the Internet what their next plan is, getting the CAIR machine revved up to try to stop it. But I wouldn't blame our "society" for her not having asylum. For whatever reason, it hasn't yet been tried. Part of the problem is that the conditions that justify an asylum appeal arose while she was a minor and did not have control of her own legal strategy. Also, of course, she kept her conversion secret for several years. So she did not apply for asylum in a timely manner after the conditions arose (namely, her conversion and her parents' discovery of it) necessitating it. I gather that's part of the complication.

Chicken, that's kind of weird. But I guess the country is only so big, after all. If he doesn't like the atmosphere at Atlas Shrugs (I don't, myself, what with gruesome pictures of the latest massacre or atrocity in my face 2 times out of 5 or so that I open the site, not to mention that dreadful banner), you can tell him that I try to be really quick with passing on the info.

I'd guess that she hasn't applied for asylum yet because she hasn't been put up for deportation; being sent back to her parents would probably get her killed, but that's already being covered without going to asylum.

Waste enough time now, she'll turn 18 before they try to force her back with her parents.

Her parents try to get her deported, THEN bring up the I-will-be-killed-if-I-am-sent-back thing.

I'm no lawyer, but it makes sense....

Alternatively, until she's legally considered able to make her own choices, she can't ask for asylum. That would also fit. Especially if she applied for asylum because she's Christian and thus estranged from her Muslim parents, they simply say "no, she's not-- see, we're in legal control of her, and we say she's not Christian" and screw the asylum petition....

I have asked around about whether a minor can apply for asylum separately from the parents, and evidently it is possible. The thing about the timeliness application, though, would seem to go against the argument that she has to suffer actual attempted deportation before trying to apply for asylum. Evidently it's supposed to be done "pro-actively," as it were. The parents actually are not in legal control of her, because she has been declared a dependent of the state of Ohio. It's an interesting question though, whether the fact that reunification hasn't been declared impossible could also be relevant to an asylum petition. If the dependency is still formally "temporary" (which could be the case), then perhaps this would be relevant to an asylum application. This is all conjecture.

What's a bit extra-worrying is that evidently one of her lawyers said something today to the effect that if she turns 18 without this declaration from the judge she will be "without immigration relief" or something like that, which sounds as though they have no backup plan.

On problem with the armchair lawyers who are all fighting with one another is that some of them have swallowed a bit too much of their own hype. An application for asylum would require some proof that she is categorically in danger if she were to return to Sri Lanka. Now, I can think of many good reasons for Rifqa to remain here--not the least of which being that the US comprises most of what she has known of life, and her family relationships at this point are tenuous. What she has of friendship and support exist in this country.

Our current immigration laws, however, don't pay much heed to such things--for anyone.

But, to then believe that she is entitled to asylum begs a question of asylum from what? What real danger (other than that of isolation in a strange country) does she face in Sri Lanka? The folks who are demanding that her attorneys make application for asylum believe that every country outside the US is filled with unchecked hoards of Muslim extremists who kill young girls and Christians at will. While Sri Lanka may be a strife-filled country, the evidence that Christians face any special danger there is scant to non-existent.

Suppose that Rifqa's attorneys--who in addition to representing her custody case have apparently been pressed into service representing her in an immigration case that does not yet exist (apart from the one filed on her behalf by her parents)--realize that Rifqa's best hope to stay in this country is not as a victim of religious persecution, but as the member of a family who has demonstrated a history of working productively in the US. I don't know if this is the case--but I suggest it might make some heads explode. Many of the voices "on Rifqa's behalf" have from the outside had specific outcomes in mind. One--that she be held separate from her family and her family be declared dangerous Muslims. Second--that she stay in the US (preferably while her family is deported) and become a voice for the Christian political right as an Apostate.

The judge (and her attorneys and guardian ad litem) has a duty to sift down below all these outside desires and consider what is best for Rifqa of all of the possible outcomes. Many of the desired (by others) outcomes are not possible--our way outside the jurisdiction of Family Court.

With all of this discussion, maybe someone will eventually get into an asylum.

The Chicken

Suppose that Rifqa's attorneys--who in addition to representing her custody case have apparently been pressed into service representing her in an immigration case that does not yet exist (apart from the one filed on her behalf by her parents)--realize that Rifqa's best hope to stay in this country is not as a victim of religious persecution, but as the member of a family who has demonstrated a history of working productively in the US.

Well, no, her lawyers have specifically rejected that option, and understandably so. Her lawyer Angela Lloyd yesterday rejected Tarazi's implication that Rifqa's immigration relief is to be sought as part of her family, on the grounds that she is not in her parents' custody and that this is therefore not possible. Moreover, Rifqa certainly will not be living with her parents when she turns 18 in just four months! There is nothing further from what she wants or sees as in her best interests, so there is no way that her immigration relief will be sought with her as part of that family. Rather, her lawyers _do_ want her to be considered separate from her family--and decisively and formally so--as _part of_ their strategy for obtaining immigration relief for her via a special juvenile immigration visa. This has nothing to do with some sort of deep right-wing plot and everything to do with what is best for Rifqa--which, I might add, everyone on every side of the present disagreement over legal strategy agrees does _not_ involve her returning to her parents' custody or living with her parents.

As to whether she could successfully file for asylum concerning danger to her in Sri Lanka, I don't know enough to predict. Evidently there are good asylum lawyers who think she could be successful. There have been calls for her death from Muslims in this country, and her parents implied that she could be "locked up" in Sri Lanka if they returned with her. Apostasy does carry a sentence of death in Islam, and that would certainly be brought out in any asylum hearing.

I think it's natural for her lawyers to want to stick with what they are familiar with and what they think is more low-key, common, secure, and less sensational. Hence the juvenile visa route. But any good strategist needs a backup plan. The question is just what theirs is and whether there _is_ any backup plan other than asylum if time should run out for the juvenile visa route.

Lydia:

I may have not been sufficiently clear with regard to my hypothetical regarding whether the best road to legal status could be to reunify with her parents. What I was suggesting is that perhaps there is some tension between the two things that Rifqa's attorneys seem to be working for: separation from her parents, and permission to remain in the US. The court, on the other hand--and Children's Services in their role as custodian--share neither of those precise goals. Their mission concerns the "best needs of the child," and in fact may be circumscribed somewhat more narrowly as regards ANY consideration of immigration status. The angst, from both Rifqa's attorneys--and all these other cheerleaders, comes from trying to force a court decision that would support these other, outside, considerations. This other, outside, agenda has so far been resisted by Judge Gill, to her credit.

The immigration ruling that allows for long-term dependents of the state to be granted legal status was not intended to provide a work-around for those near majority to become citizens by throwing themselves into state care. The ramifications of this are frightening. It was intended to allow those children who have already lost their families due to abuse or neglect to stay in the country that has already taken them in. Any attempt on the part of the judge to prematurely determine that reunification is impossible would be inappropriate.

Sorry, Ohioan, but there would be nothing "premature" about such a judgment. Indeed, the very fact that she is so close to majority makes it all the clearer. The only way for her to be reunified with her parents would be for her to be forced to be reunified, very much against her will, which is obviously not right. Thank God, it doesn't look like that, at least, is going to happen, though Gill goes on pretending for heaven knows what reason. Which is not to her credit. Moreover, if you think that it would be in Rifqa's best interests to go back to her parents, then you just don't believe her, and I'm not all that interested in talking with you. Her allegations--including the allegation that her parents were planning deliberately to take her back to Sri Lanka and "deal with" her because of her conversion--are credible, and staying in the U.S. was the last thing likely to happen to her if she had succumbed to pressure to return to them.

Also asylum as a strategy is a hail Mary sort of thing. It isn't easy to get and the burden is on the applicant. There is also limited opportunity for review should asylum be turned down. This would likely be a scary road for her.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001158----000-.html

Depending on circumstances a judge may be entertaining several petitions for an urgent hearing so her perspective is likely to be different than folks like us who are focused on one case. Not sure of the Ohio rules but perhaps on parental rights cases a precipitous action, short circuiting a routine process, would likely trigger an appeal which could really delay things.

The judge...has a duty to sift down below all these outside desires and consider what is best for Rifqa of all of the possible outcomes.

She can make her job easier by letting Rifqa decide.

...and become a voice for the Christian political right as an Apostate.

When someone says something like this, it makes me suspect that what's best for Rifqa is not really his foremost concern. And I'll bet Lydia would scream louder than anyone if a political faction tried to use the girl.

When someone says something like this, it makes me suspect that what's best for Rifqa is not really his foremost concern.

Don't beat around the bush, William. Her best interests are not his/her concern. All of this philosophizing is just a diversion from the fact that her life has been threatened badly enough that she felt the need to run away from one side of the country to another to get away from her family. The courts are wasting everyone's time in not making that the linchpin of every consideration of "her best interests."

Our leftist friends won't believe him, but Bill Luse is absolutely right. I want Rifqa to have a decent life and her freedom to worship Jesus Christ. She certainly isn't going to have all of that in Sri Lanka, even if she somehow avoided being killed, institutionalized, forcibly married, or a hundred other horrible things. I think she should stay away from her parents and her creepy brother as far as possible, and she obviously thinks so, too. God willing, she can stay here in the United States. But honestly, I think it would be best for her just to go to college and get a job and/or get married to some nice Christian man, not to be a permanent Christian celebrity.

When someone says something like this, it makes me suspect that what's best for Rifqa is not really his foremost concern. And I'll bet Lydia would scream louder than anyone if a political faction tried to use the girl.

A political faction has been using her. In fact, several political factions.

Pam Geller was screaming bloody murder outside the court some months back demanding that Rifqa be "allowed" to address the crowd. She was also eager to take her on the road to the CPAC conference.

Florida Security Council has used her name and face on their site for pumping up noise. John Stemberger has certainly remained very vocal, with rumors of a book deal--even though his actual role on her Ohio legal team may be only in his head. Jamal Jivanjee has enjoyed tremendous publicity for his "ministry" through association with her. Lou Engle used her testimony/prayer on a politically-motivated anti-Muslim conference call.

Sorry, Ohioan, but there would be nothing "premature" about such a judgment. Indeed, the very fact that she is so close to majority makes it all the clearer. The only way for her to be reunified with her parents would be for her to be forced to be reunified, very much against her will, which is obviously not right.

I don't know if you have any actual experience with counseling, or work with families or teenagers. But real life is not like a one-hour crime drama on TV. The fact that she is close to the age of majority makes nothing clear, except that the state and her parents will be free of any obligation to provide her with support at that time. The court, however, could choose to extend the period of involvement based on some dependency criteria that may or may not apply to this case.

There are many factors to be considered in counseling here. One is the conflict of growing up a minority immigrant in America--and the impact on a family with parents who grew up in a very different society. Another is the cultish practices of the religious groups with which she has been associated. In addition are the incredibly strong and insistent anti-Muslim sentiments in the surrounding environment--many of whom absolutely believe that all Muslims are bent on killing all Christians.

I believe Rifqa's fears. That does not mean I believe them to be rational or credible reflections of her parents or their actions.

Using the immmigration issue to "push" the counseling effort towards a particular conclusion--after what has only been a few months at best--is in fact premature. It only makes sense in the context of a deep-seated belief that Rifqa's parents, as Muslims, are categorically a danger to her, or some fear that counseling, if trusted and given time, might successfully respond to Rifqa's fears and provide her with a less hysterical, more rational, set of responses to her family.

I believe Rifqa's fears. That does not mean I believe them to be rational or credible reflections of her parents or their actions.

That's what the courts said to the children of Matthew Winkler after the daughter testified against her mother in the murder trial and they award her custody anyway...

**which is to say, the courts are often quick to blithely dismiss a child's legitimate fears, even in cases that would make most adults, even with a lack of hard evidence, feel very squeamish about turning the kids back over to their parents.

the cultish practices of the religious groups with which she has been associated.

By which, of course, "Ohioan" means the Christians who have been kind to her and not the parents who, she alleges, smacked her around for not wanting to wear the head-covering, nor the Noor mosque with its terror ties. Nope. It's the Christians who are the "cultish" groups. Please.

Okay, Ohioan, I'm done talking to you. No doubt (as revealed even by your comments about "continued involvement" by the courts and giving large amounts of time to counseling to make Rifqa more "rational") if you had your way this poor young woman would continue to be hounded for years even after she turned 18 to try to pressure her to go back into her parents' control.

"It only makes sense in the context of a deep-seated belief that Rifqa's parents, as Muslims, are categorically a danger to her, or some fear that counseling, if trusted and given time, might successfully respond to Rifqa's fears and provide her with a less hysterical, more rational, set of responses to her family."

Whatever her parent's reaction to her conversion was, we may assume it wasn't, "that's nice, dear, you're still our daughter and we still love and support you". These aren't Orthodox Jews where the clothes are on the lawn and the family is sitting Shiva. The stakes culturally, at the outside, aren't banishment and homelessness. Unless you actually know the family very well, your assumptions, while mirroring the conventional DCS attitudes, may not fit this case.

I heard again on the radio this morning about the fate of foster children who "age out" of the system. There is an incredibly high rate of crime and homelessness. Why? because they lack resources and are highly vulnerable. While you see an extended period of time in the care of the state as some kind of brainwashing opportunity, I see it as a continued time in which she does not need to worry about how to put a roof over her head and to work on the very real issues in her life.

Most children with intact families have a strong support system to which they can return as needed (and in fact leaving the day after one's 18th birthday is not an automatic expectation) and from which they can draw strength, wisdom, financial support, health insurance coverage, exploration and confirmation of who they are and where they come from. Families matter intensely. I speak as an adoptive parent. Even when a biological family CANNOT raise a child, there are ties and the loss of a biological family is a profound and life-long wound.

So many have been certain since the name Rifqa Bary was first blasted online (inappropriately, by all child welfare and juvenile justice standards, BTW) by Pastor Blake Lorenz that the Lorenz family presented a clear and present danger to this child. That belief has persisted, even as investigations have failed to provide any substantiating evidence. Those believers will never be satisfied so long as any rational course is followed that might possibly lead to a reconciliation. They have (and Jamal Jivanjee even uses this terminology) defined the Barys as evil and the enemy.

But whether on not this family ever reconciles, there is work to be done, through counseling, which must continue to hold open that door.

Dear Ohioan,

You wrote:

... or some fear that counseling, if trusted and given time, might successfully respond to Rifqa's fears and provide her with a less hysterical, more rational, set of responses to her family.

My, how patronizing we are...and how dare you, my good sir/madam claim to a knowledge of the situation that is almost certainly beyond you. Her responses irrational? Evidence? Hysterical? So, you've spoken to her?

What the hell (pardon my language) does counseling and trust of counseling have to do with anything that YOU know of in this case? The principle matter here must be reckoned as a difference of FAITHS, not interpersonal communication. Your comments strike me as being those of either a very liberal mind-set or of a closet atheist. Do you not realize that people live and die for what they believe in, for the God they believe in, for the faith in that God? Do you think the purpose of counseling is to make us all tolerant or to make faith something that is merely an aspect of culture which may be jettisoned for the sake of a peace that is merely a lie?

There are some cases where Moslems and Christians simply cannot live together, period (at least until the Parousia, at which time only one religion will remain). When Jesus said that he came to light a fire, would you have recommended counseling for him until he and the pharisees could have learned to relate to each other in a spirit of cooperation? When young St. Francis of Assisi cast off his clothes and gave them back to his father rather than follow the family way, should he have been given counseling sessions to reconcile with his father? Oh, will no one stand up and be counted, any more?

I cannot tell if you believe in a gutless faith or an over-stepping reach of psychology. Many psychologists, it appears (at least from my limited knowledge), would have no business stepping in to counsel in this situation because their faith-knowledge is at the level of a six-year old. One of my best friends is a clinical psychologist, who is a devout Christian, and she tells me that the number of psychologists who are qualified to counsel in religious matters is very small.

Seventeen year olds rebel against their parents, yes, but few are willing to go to the limits that Rifqa has simply to get attention. At some point, unless the person is delusional, the pretenses must break down and the genuine need be revealed. So far, no one, on either side, has really seen evidence that this affair is merely a cry for attention. Rifqa does not appear to be delusional (unless you wish to call Christians delusional, as a rule). If you think the family problems being discussed in this case are merely some problem typically seen in family counseling, then you are quite wrong. Cite one case from the counseling literature which is similar to this in which counseling has reached a good conclusion without destroying, weakening, or encapsulating the faith of one or the other party.

You write:

I don't know if you have any actual experience with counseling, or work with families or teenagers. But real life is not like a one-hour crime drama on TV.

Indeed, it is not and counseling is as bias-driven and political as the culture in which it exists will allow. I once quit a job because I saw the results of so-called counseling on juveniles who were considered at risk. I am sorry, but I was not impressed with the theory.

You wrote:

Any attempt on the part of the judge to prematurely determine that reunification is impossible would be inappropriate.

I have no idea what this means. Reunification IS impossible, since to be reunified in any sense beyond merely living together under the same roof, would require either that Rifqa or her parents revert or convert, respectively. You seem to want to ignore thirteen-hundred years of history between Moslems and Christians. It may be possible for the parties to live in a sort of charitable peace, but what the word peace means cannot even be guaranteed to mean the same thing to a Moslem and a Christian and a charitable peace is not the same thing as true peace. A charitable peace permits, for a time, an evil to exist for the sake of a higher good. This is not, however, the peace based on a shared, united, commitment to the truth. That is not possible in this case. Heck, it isn't possible in many families of divided religion. I have yet to see counseling do anything but bring a sense of relativism or indifferentism to the table in an attempt to resolve the difficulties; certainly not the consideration that one of the religions might actually be true.

Make no mistake, this is not a legal matter, principally, although it is being cast as one in the courts. It is an ideological and religious matter. Saints younger than Rifqa have died for the faith. Young people can show, in certain cases, a wisdom far beyond that of the state. I cannot speak to Rifqa's wisdom, but then, neither can you. Surely, she prays. St. James is quite clear that if one earnestly seeks wisdom, it will be granted. One must assume that Rifqa will be granted the wisdom to do what is right, if she is sincere and stays close to the Lord. Against that sort of wisdom, counseling is useless...and so is the judge.

I heard again on the radio this morning about the fate of foster children who "age out" of the system. There is an incredibly high rate of crime and homelessness. Why? because they lack resources and are highly vulnerable.

Good grief! These statistics are about children from secular families. The rate of crime and homelessness among Christian foster children who age out the state system is almost nil because they have the entire resources and support of the Christian community to work with. Don't you think I could easily find over 1000 Christian families who would take Rifqa in after she aged out of the system? Please, Ohioan, quit cherry-picking your data. Counseling will prove useless in this case, since its goals are vague at best, sinful at worst.

What do you mean by counseling in this case, anyway. You use this term in a vague and undefined manner, but you seem to indicate that it will be a means by which Rifqa, a typical adolescent acting out of teenage angst (so you seem to have said), will be given the tools to make more reasoned responses to her environment. Rubbish. What, pray tell, is the special wisdom given the counselors? What training in handling religious differences do counselors receive? You persist in thinking that this is merely a psycho-social problem. Provide your evidence. I have seen religion tear families apart. Why is that not at least as reasonable a theory of the interpersonal dynamic of this family as some sort of irrational response (needing counseling) on Rifqa's part?

I have limited patience, these days, with the impact of psychology in religious matters, so, to prevent my blood pressure from escalating, I will bow out of this discussion. I've made my point, I trust.

The Chicken

Masked Chicken:

My inclination is to give you a snappy answer along the lines of "My God is big enough to be trusted with this problem--sorry about your," but I expect that is a bit too flippant. Clearly you and I are of different minds. You believe that you have found the one and only truth and any deviation from it can only be evil. I am more tolerant--but it is a tolerance that comes not from relativism, but from the knowledge of our imperfections--we see now as in a glass, but some day, face to face. There is great room for error, as our God is a loving and forgiving God who does not expect perfection of us. I celebrate Communion weekly--and feel that to be about an appropriate schedule, trusting that my imperfections will rack up enough to need the ritual of forgiveness that often.

Perhaps my willingness to accept my Muslim brothers and sisters grows out of all my years of struggle to accept those of my Christian brothers and sisters with whom I disagree. Sometimes profoundly. But I also recall the work of Paul in evangelism. In approaching those of different belief, he looked first for commonalities, even setting aside some of the laws and customs of judaism--which did not always sit well with his own brethren.

I do not reject counseling as an evil work bent on destroying faith, in fact I have experienced it to be exactly the opposite. I. and family members, have been counseled both by those of similar faith (including those with ministerial credentials and experience) and those whose faith was different. Never have I encountered any suggestion that my belief (or at times my skepticism) in God were either THE problem, or A problem. In fact, I cannot recall a time that such was anything other than a strength. But then, I have never followed a religion that urged me to do things that were counter to my health and wellness. Some do. I have known of believers--and you appear to be one--who urge that counseling is evil, as there are also believers who trust only in God for physical healing. With this I disagree--and when such beliefs harm children, I support the state in intervening.

What is God to do with us? Some are praying that this family be healed, and others that it remain apart. Well--God is able to find a way.

Good grief! These statistics are about children from secular families. The rate of crime and homelessness among Christian foster children who age out the state system is almost nil because they have the entire resources and support of the Christian community to work with.

Sorry-you are going to have to back that one up with some data. BTW--I know some young adults who need a home and cannot return to their parents. Where would you suggest that I send them? Do you have an address?

It's clear what Ohioan means by "counseling." He means that Rifqa should be done the "favor" by the State of Ohio of being treated as a minor _after_ her 18th birthday so that a) the state can provide for her needs and b) the state can continue to force her to go through counseling she doesn't want to go through for the purposes of trying to beat down her resistance to going back and living with her parents, on the unquestioned, unargued, and uninvestigated assumption that her distrust of her parents is irrational and hysterical.

Paternalism to the max.

Lydia--it seems equally clear to me that you want to "free" Rifqa from all supports so that she will be beholden to the many folks eager to own her. Or do you have another vision for how an 18 year old with no family makes her way in the world?

She should be treated as an adult at age 18 in the sense that she can choose with whom to associate and whose help to accept, as long as those associations do not break other legitimate laws. (That is to say, I am not saying that she has a "right" to become a prostitute and work for a pimp at age 18.) But I certainly do think she should be free at age 18 to go and live with the Lorenzes (for example) if she should choose to do so and to accept their help. You, evidently, would rather have her kept a prisoner of the state and unable to make contact with anyone the state does not approve of, which you hope will correspond with those you do not approve of. She should no more be kept from accepting help from and associating with those free citizens she regards as her friends than you are. What's funny is that you on the one hand claim to be concerned for how she will support herself yet on the other hand are obviously at least equally concerned that she not be supported by the people you don't like and whom she might choose to allow to help her.

Pretty obvious, isn't it? You want the young woman kept a prisoner of the state (indefinitely? till she turns 21? or what?) to force your values upon her and forcibly separate her from a type of Christians you dislike. That such imprisonment would be a manifest injustice makes no difference to you.

I suppose if she chose to go back and live with a group of Muslim friends, wear the hijab or even the full burka, go to the Noor mosque every week, and, oh, I dunno, participate in pro-Hamas rallies from time to time, that would be just fine with you.

The bias is just...striking.

Dear Ohioan,

First of all, I would like to apologize for my brusque tone and any improper assumptions about you I may have made in my posts, above. I usually try to be charitable, but my passion got the better of me. The situation Rifqa is in reveals all that is wrong between the world and those who try to live a Christian faith.

You wrote:

I have known of believers--and you appear to be one--who urge that counseling is evil, as there are also believers who trust only in God for physical healing. With this I disagree--and when such beliefs harm children, I support the state in intervening.

I did not say that counseling is evil. I said that in this case the burden of proof that counseling is either needed or likely to be useful is on the state. The state, it seems, has completely ignored the very real possibility that this is simply a case of a clash of religions and nothing more. I have no idea what counseling can do in that case, since, if counseling were really interested in leading people to the truth, then it either must deal with the truth claims of the people involved or run the risk of pressing its own ideologies. Religion is at the heart of the matter and most counselors (outside of a few who specialize) are as well-verse in religion as the next-door neighbor. What gives them the right to interfere?

As for believers who only trust in God for physical healing, has anyone been physically hurt in this case? This comment has nothing to do with the issues involved. It may be true that the state has the right, in certain cases, to act when, say, a Jehovah's Witness refuses a blood transfusion, but nothing of the sort is involved, here. God is a healer, but in this case, the greatest healing will occur when the truth is exposed, whatever that is. God can also work miracles and woebetide the state that dismisses these. Doctors are useful - Christ said as much, but he also performed miracles of physical healing and there is too much documented evidence that they occasionally occur today to dismiss. Doctors are not infallible, either, you know.

I am aware of the Psychology is Evil movement among some contemporary Evangelicals and that is a matter for another discussion. Very simply, psychology is something sanctioned by the state with somewhat broader claims than the science demonstrates. I am a scientist; among some of my research I do mathematical modeling of brain neurodynamics. I work with psychologists and my work is well-known and respected by at least one emeritus professor and former head of the American Psychiatric Society as well as international experts.

You seem to think that the problems here are interpersonal and therefore subject to counseling. As I mentioned, above, one of my best friends is a Ph.D clinical psychologist, I have had a few friends who have sought professional counseling, and I, myself, and an internationally recognized expert in one area of psychology (although an uncommon one), so I hardly think you can accuse me of making counseling into a bogey-man. Relieving psychological stress can often cause growth in faith, when it is primarily psychological stress which is involved. That does not seem to be the case, here. The stress comes out of religious conviction and if counseling were to attempt to change that, then it would be, by its very nature, a genuine evil. In other words, counseling should stay within its sphere of competency. In this case, the appropriate sphere is theology, not psychology.

You wrote:

Perhaps my willingness to accept my Muslim brothers and sisters grows out of all my years of struggle to accept those of my Christian brothers and sisters with whom I disagree. Sometimes profoundly. But I also recall the work of Paul in evangelism. In approaching those of different belief, he looked first for commonalities, even setting aside some of the laws and customs of judaism--which did not always sit well with his own brethren.

I do not know what this means. Your willingness to accept what about your Muslim brothers and sisters? Hopefully, not their religion. It is defective, you know. Accept them as human beings? You darn well better if you are a Christian, since all humans are made in the image of God. Love them? You are commanded to, but love delights in the truth and a love that accepts untruth in another, except for a time, is not worthy of being called love. I work with an international group of scholars and while I love them all, I must not accept every belief they have nor ignore their consequences, except for a time. Acceptance is not a codeword for indifference or excessive tolerance. There are, simply, some things that should not be tolerated. To hold otherwise is to hold a faulty understanding of evil. Christ loved everyone; he did not accept them in the sense that I suspect you might mean (please, clarify what you mean by the word, accept). There is a profound difference between love and acceptance, but this distinction has been blurred by the modern psychological society. They preach that one must accept everyone; the commandment is to love everyone. Acceptance involves the possibility of a very real slide into a defective universal tolerance. Love involves willing the good for the other, even if it involves pain on your part or the other.

When St. Paul said that he tried to be all things to all men, he did not mean that he tried to accept all things about all men. In fact, I recall something to the effect that he commented, once, that a group of men who were spreading a different gospel should immolate themselves. Consider the following comments:

Galatians 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

St. Paul was accomodative of the misunderstandings of his audience to a point. He bore with others for the sake of the Gospel. He did not accept their points of view as being one among equals, however, and he was quite blunt in calling people to repentance.

Also, St. Paul did not set aside any of the Jewish customs; Christ did, when he abolished the Law and this was for all men, not some he were trying to convert.

So, you appear to be appealing to a sort of Modernism in how you think religion and psychology should interact. What exactly do you expect counseling to do? Do you really think that Rifqa should "accept" her parents? What twaddling psychobabble. She is commanded to love her parents, but this does not mean simply playing nice. When the Ohio court has any response to the following, then I may listen to them. It seems to apply, particularly, here:

Matt 10:32 - 42
So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and a man's foes will be those of his own household.
He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.
"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.
He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."

If I am so passionate about this matter, it is because Christians are dying in the world, right now, by the hands of some so-called tolerant societies. Whether it be the bodily dying of those in the Middle East or the dying of personal freedom in the West, they die for Christ. To offer them counseling is an insult. To force it on them is a violation of human rights (and I know more about this area that you could ever wish to know and God forbid that you would have to go through what I have suffered in this area). I wish you could understand this. I hope your faith is never challenged at the point of a sword or the bench of a court room. You have no idea of the pain involved. I am sure that Rifqa does. I am sure that the counselors do not.

The Chicken

Sorry-you are going to have to back that one up with some data. BTW--I know some young adults who need a home and cannot return to their parents. Where would you suggest that I send them? Do you have an address?

I do not appreciate the snarkiness. I was clear, was I not, in making the distinction between the statistics you quoted being about secular families and not about Christian ones? You have the burden of proof wrong - it is you who must prove that the secular statistics you wanted to use apply to Christian families, since this was your argument, not I who have to prove the opposite. However, I would put agencies like Catholic or Lutheran Social Services against secular agencies any day. My own Church is, as we speak, supporting a mother of eight children who do not have a father available. In fact, Cardinal O' Connor, when he was alive, said that a woman who was tempted to abort a baby because of money should contact him. He would pay for everything needed for the mother and baby to give them a place to stay. It is a precept (and a Corporal Work of Mercy) for the Church to care for orphans and widows (as St. Paul points out). Documentation: we have 2000 years worth in many different countries. In some places, such as some areas in Africa, it is only the Church that cares for orphans.
If you want hard statistics in the Ohio area, it is simple: the number of families who split up of people who attend a Christian church is about 2%. If the families never split up, there simply are fewer children without parents. Of those that are, the social services are very good about placing them in foster homes and there is no age limit on supporting foster children among Christians, so the issue is moot, any way, since they never age out of the system.

The Chicken

Or do you have another vision for how an 18 year old with no family makes her way in the world?

The same way any other adult would? This ignores, of course, that she does have a "family" that wants to take care of her-- and a family that wants to "take care" of her, while we're at it.

For your aged out claim to have meaning here, it would have to be compared to a population of similarly troubled youths, and other factors-- like how many are killed or assaulted by their family members or those associated with their family members-- would have to be factored in.

"Most children with intact families have a strong support system to which they can return as needed (and in fact leaving the day after one's 18th birthday is not an automatic expectation) and from which they can draw strength, wisdom, financial support, health insurance coverage, exploration and confirmation of who they are and where they come from."

If Rifqa's family is serious about reconciliation there are a number of things they can do that don't require court mandated anything and that would serve as confidence building gestures. For example, the law now allows her to remain on her parents health insurance until she is 27. They can make sure this happens and simply mail her the card. Likewise they are not precluded from providing financial support - checks can be mailed.

What I don't get is why the next few months are so all fired important in the matter of reconciliation with her parents. They have years to work this out. As a Christian, Rifqa is probably familiar with forgiveness if her parents establish their sincerity. What seems to be over and what needs to be over is any power relationship.

Al, you and I are in agreement about this. (Surprisingly enough.)

It's obvious to me that the reason the next few months are considered so important by those pushing reconciliation is that they assume (let's hope, correctly) that after August 10 the court will not have nor arrogate to itself authority to _force_ Rifqa to go through reconciliation counseling on their terms and their time schedule. Hence, this is the last chance to really pressure her. Which is a highly unpleasant implication, once stated that baldly.

It's my opinion that reconciliation of some sort, genuine as far as it goes, is a lot more likely when there is _no_ power relationship and nobody pushing. Most of us should know this from personal experience. If we had conflicts with our parents, we were usually able to view them with more calmness when we felt free of coercion and power and when we had developed an independent life for ourselves. Even an abused child is more likely to be able to forgive his abusive parent when he doesn't have to live with that parent, when he is a free adult.

The NPR reports I've found about "aging out" talk about how the state stops paying at 21, by the way. I would guess it varies by state and situation, and it STILL doesn't apply to this girl.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.