Freedom of religion is a central tenet within the American psyche. It is enshrined in American law through the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Religious freedom is also a cornerstone of American immigration history. Dating back to the earliest European settlers, many immigrants and refugees have come to America to escape religious persecution and enjoy freedom to practice any religion—or no religion at all.

 

    In recent years, some politicians, businesses, and professionals have used religious freedom arguments to advocate for the right to refuse to provide services to people from certain diversity groups on the basis of religious objections. This article explores religious freedom in the context of social work practice, specifically whether it is ethical for social workers to cite religious differences with clients as the basis for referring clients to other workers, rather than providing services themselves.

 

    Consider the following dialogue between two social workers in a family counseling agency.  

 

Roger: I’ve just conducted an intake interview with Mr. Perez. I’d like to refer him to you. I think it would be a better fit. [Note: Ella identifies as a lesbian.]

 

Roger: As you know, I am Christian, and homosexuality is viewed as an abomination in my religion. It’s partly an issue of who can serve this client better, but also, a question of religious freedom. I don’t think I should be forced to support a homosexual lifestyle. This would violate my core beliefs. [Note: Roger identifies as an evangelist Christian.]

 

    This abbreviated interaction highlights issues that may arise when the principles of religious freedom conflict with social workers’ obligations to clients, including the ethical obligations to provide service and to treat all people with respect. What are your thoughts on Ella’s and Roger’s perspectives? What are the key differences in their narratives and ethical perspectives? How could they engage one another in a collaborative problem-solving discussion of these issues, despite their differences?

 

    One of Roger’s key points is that he should enjoy freedom of religion, just as any other person. The principle of religious freedom suggests that people should be able to have their own religious beliefs and conduct their life in accordance with these beliefs, without interference or coercion from the state or other actors (Carlson-Thies, 2017). The NASW Code of Ethics (2018) does not explicitly mention religious freedom. Standard 2.01 of the Code does suggest that social workers should show respect to their colleagues and not demean their religion. Standard 4.02 further suggests that social workers should not discriminate on the basis of religion. Remember, however, that the Code focuses on social workers’ ethical obligations to clients, employers, society, colleagues, and the profession. It does not identify social workers’ rights or freedoms.

 

    Standard 1.01 says that social workers’ primary commitment is to their clients. This is one of Ella’s key points. Standard 1.01 implies that social workers should give precedence to their clients’ needs for service, even over their religious beliefs. Further, Standard 4.02 suggests that social workers should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. So, does Roger’s decision to refer Mr. Perez to Ella amount to discrimination? Isn’t he refusing to provide service on the basis of the client’s sexual orientation?

 

 

• Direct from the publisher
• Amazon.com