It saddens me as a Christian when I hear about practices that remain legal despite tremendous data expressing how dangerous they are to the populations that they serve. With the overwhelming knowledge we now possess on conversion therapy and its damaging effects on minors, it was disheartening to learn that this practice was still legal in the state of Hawaii., 
 
According to my Christian and social work principles, I believe that any act that causes serious psychological harm to children is something that we as a society should adamantly oppose. I am hopeful that after reading this blog post, my fellow Christians will begin to shift their thinking around the topic of conversion therapy and that my fellow social workers will submit testimony in support of a ban on this archaic type of therapy on vulnerable children.
 
For those who do not know what conversion therapy is, conversion therapy is a type of therapy that aims to convert homosexual individuals into heterosexual individuals. This type of therapy stems from the belief that homosexuality is not only a sin but a choice, that people have control over. Christians who support conversion therapy believe that because in the Bible it states that homosexuality is something that can be “changed” or “fixed”, we should do all we can to prevent it from occurring.
 
Conversion therapy has been in existence since 1869, however the influx of new information has shown that this type of therapy is not only lacks efficacy, but also highly unethical. Minors who are given conversion therapy have a substantially higher rate of mental health issues as a result of the therapy, which include depression, social withdrawal and suicide. I can’t imagine someone telling me that the way I am as a human being is wrong. It is no surprise that these types of practices lead to self-hatred and severe insecurities.

The Bible is a book that I read almost every day and from it I look for messages from Jesus on acceptance, love and forgiveness. It is a beautiful book written during a much different period then we live in today, and because of this, in order to understand the Bible, it must be analyzed contextually.
 
Some of the Bible’s messages teach that women shall be subservient to men. In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 it states that:
 
“The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
 
The Bible also discusses what women should wear in 1 Corinthians 11:5:
 
“But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.”
 
In most modern day churches (at least the ones that I go to), there are a plethora of women teachers and speakers. Most female Christians that I know also do not wear head coverings during prayer. The reason why these rules are permitted is because it is known that some of the teachings of the Bible must be looked at according to the time period that they were written.
 
In today’s society, most of us (hopefully) acknowledge that women are equal to men but historically many men opposed women’s right to vote because of the belief that it went against their religious beliefs. In my opinion, when the Bible was written, some of Jesus’ loving teachings were overpowered by the incorporation of the values of men during that time.

Slavery, subservient women and homosexuality were all things that during that time period were the “norm”. Biblical literature became a tool that legitimated and furthered the priests' political and religious authority. (Schneidwind, 2008).
 
With all of that being said, every parent should undeniably have the freedom and ability to raise their children how they see fit, so long that it does not cause their children to suffer from any psychological, physical, emotional or other harm. Talking to your children regarding whatever principles and values that are important to you, is much different from engaging in practices or therapies that harm your child.
 
According to a 2009 report of the American Psychological Association, the techniques therapists have used in conversion therapy include but are not limited to: “inducing nausea, vomiting, or paralysis while showing the patient homoerotic images; providing electric shocks; having the individual snap an elastic band around the wrist when aroused by same-sex erotic images or thoughts; using shame to create aversion to same-sex attractions; orgasmic reconditioning; and satiation therapy”.
 
Many religious organizations who support conversion therapy claim that they only help people who want to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, and that they only offer their programs for people who want to change. However, many participants in these programs are youth (minors) who are not in the program by choice but are forced into such programs by parents or religious authorities.
 
From a legal perspective, the law requesting to ban conversion therapy does not aim to prevent consenting adults from obtaining therapy but rather protects vulnerable minors from psychological and emotional harm. According to the McGeorge Law Review, federal courts have found that a patient does not have a constitutional right to obtain a particular type of treatment if the government has reasonably prohibited that type of treatment.
 
Providing treatment is not covered under the First Amendment whereas providing advice and guidance are. The bill to ban conversion therapy simply regulates conduct without eliminating the ability to discuss sexual orientation, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech.
 
Current research shows that conversion therapy is both unethical and ineffective and it is my hope that Christians will begin to advocate for the protection of children as opposed to exposing them to irreversible harm. If you are in support of protecting children as well as supporting a bill that does not infringe on individuals’ rights, please vote in support of Hawaii Senate Bill 2615, banning the use of conversion therapy.

 
I was scrolling through my Facebook on a typical Tuesday afternoon when I saw a posting about an abandoned, black dog with benevolent eyes and a loveable puppy-dog face. The dog was inconceivably malnourished and according to the post, seemingly very ill.

The person who posted about the stray dog said that they were unable to keep him because of the estimated cost of his medical bills, so they would be taking him to the Humane Society. The author of the post pleaded for help and asked if anyone may be able to take the dog from the Humane Society, knowing that the dog would be put down if no one came to claim him.
 
Because I am unable to resist rescuing anything with a heartbeat, I found myself an hour later at the Humane Society signing paperwork and driving to the vet’s office with a 30-pound dog consisting of only skin and bones and covered in throw up, cuddled on my lap. As I was waiting for him to see the vet, I was taken aback by the fact that I was not familiar with any programs in the social work field designed to help people with their animals. The dog (who I would end up naming Buddy) would need medical assistance, totaling close to $1,000, and round the clock monitoring and care. Thanks to generous donations, I was able to take Buddy home and did the best I could to nurse the sweet two-year-old boy, knowing very well that he was incredibly ill and his odds of survival were very slim.
 
When Buddy’s health stopped improving, he was diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia that had progressed so far that it had done irreversible damage to his lungs. What we found out was that Buddy had a condition called “Megaesophagus disease”, which meant that it was nearly impossible for him to keep food or liquids down unless he was sitting upright. This disease is almost certainly what caused him to aspirate, consequently leading to the pneumonia.
 
What is interesting about this particular disease is that when it is caught early enough, Megaesophagus Disease is a completely manageable disease if the owner is aware of how to care for their pet. Upon learning about this disease, I came to the realization that Buddy’s owner may have not meant to neglect him, but possibly did not know how to care for him when he was unable to keep his food down. His owner may have become overwhelmed or simply lacked the financial resources to assist his sick pet.
 
It seems like an obvious connection to be able to help both people and animals simultaneously as we are now aware of the profound depth that is the relationship between humans and their pets. With thousands of dogs being abused and neglected each year, it made me wonder what more we as social workers can be doing to help these vulnerable animals.
 
After the experience with Buddy, I began researching more about the connection between social work and animals and I was thrilled to discover a field called Veterinary Social Work. Veterinary social work has been around for over 30 years in some form or another but has only recently started gaining momentum. The University of Tennessee in Knoxville offers a Veterinary Social Work that is one of the most popular veterinary social work programs in the country, providing a “marriage” between the field of veterinary medicine and social work.
 
According to their website:
 “Social work literature has addressed issues of pet loss (Margolies, 2003) animal-assisted therapy (Reichert, 1998), companion animals and well-being (Sable, 1995), the importance of pets for the elderly (Netting & Wilson, 1987), the link between interpersonal violence and animal abuse (Strand & Faver, 2005), social work implications of animal hoarding (Arluke, Frost, Steketee, Patronek, Luke, Messner, Nathanson, & Papazian, 2002), and even social work in veterinary clinic settings (Netting, Wilson & New, 1987). The social work literature has even engaged in debate about social workers' responsibility under the NASW Code of Ethics to attend to the welfare of animals themselves (e.g. Wolf, 2000, O'Brien, 2003). What has been missing is the solidifying and professionalizing of this aspect of social work practice.” 
​
Veterinary social workers work to help their clients with grief and pet loss, animal-assisted interactions, researching the link between human and animal violence as well as providing compassion fatigue management. This new, innovative field provides training and licensing for social workers interested in working with both humans and animals concurrently. Learning about this program motivated me to learn more about what can be done to strengthen this new profession and to begin researching what bills were currently in the legislative process surrounding animal welfare.
 
Buddy’s pneumonia had unfortunately progressed too far and after two weeks of constant love and attention, he passed away. Although it was undeniably heartbreaking to lose Buddy, I am comforted in knowing that he spent that last few weeks of his life in a warm bed, well fed with people who loved and appreciated him. If Buddy’s owners had been able to speak with a veterinary social worker, the social worker may have been able to provide the owners with the knowledge and resources on how best to care for him. With these resources, it is possible that he may not have been abandoned and left to fend for himself.
 
Most people think of their pets as a part of their families, so it is time that we start investing in their well being to ensure that they receive the love and care that they deserve. Aside from Micro and Mezzo practice, it is important for us as social worker to pass bills and submit testimony in support of the welfare of animals. Please, help me in making sure that what happened to Buddy does not happen to other animals. I am hopeful to learn more about what can be done to strengthen the field of veterinary social work and look forward to hearing from my fellow social workers on advice and feedback regarding this topic.
 
In memory of, Buddy:
​

            Reading and watching the news lately has felt even more depressing and morbid than usual, but in a way, I almost find myself desensitized to the violence and accustomed to the stereotypical name calling and finger pointing that comes thereafter. Upon hearing about the shooting in California, my initial reaction was not one of expected fear or one of sadness but one of apathy, as I knew that the immediate reaction to this type of horrific situation by our leaders would involve the programed partisanship behavior that has become the new, disappointing norm.

When listening to our Nation’s senators, I often times feel as though I am watching two siblings arguing to their mom about the need to share each other’s toys. Since the Reagan administration, partisanship has only continued to worsen and as a result, our country is in a state of political gridlock. The Senate historically was regarded as one of our country’s most noble and praiseworthy establishments but as time has progressed, the reputation of the Senate and Senators has only continued to deteriorate. The uses of filibusters, cloture and filing the amendment tree in the Senate have only continued to exacerbate this problem.

The biggest issue, in my opinion, is not as clear-cut as both sides seem to make it out to be and stems from the simple fact that both sides have lost any and all ability to listen or negotiate. According to an article written by Senator Snowe for the Harvard Journal on Legislation in 2013, much of what occurs today is not meaningful debate but rather “political messaging” which has the sole purpose of making a political statement as a way to make the opposing party look bad.
Our country is becoming increasingly polarized because of a lack of any ability to communicate, the influence of money in politics (Super Pacs) and a reliance on information from the biased, mainstream media (Fox News and MSNBC). It is my hope that we will continue to work towards advocating for a country that never loses its ability to negotiate while consistently and relentlessly, stands firm in our convictions.
 
To read more about this, please read the following article:
Snowe, S. J. (2013). The effect of modern partisanship on legislative effectiveness in the 12th congress. Harvard Journal on Legislation. 50(1), 21-40. 

The advent of technology has brought about remarkable change, innovation and knowledge. We now have access to whatever information we may need at the drop of a hat, bringing the world closer together in a way that would have previously been unfathomable. But as our society continues to drift into more and more of a digital existence, I found myself wondering this week if our laws have been able to keep up with our rapidly evolving culture.
 
Not all progress is met with positive implications. Cyber-bullying has led to an increase in psychological disorders among adolescent youth and hateful and divisive rhetoric has only continued to divide an already polarized country (Kowalski, 2012). The question then becomes this: Where do we draw the line between protecting freedom of speech and protecting our citizens’ from irrevocable harm?
 
After seeing a comment last week written by an anonymous, middle-aged man threatening individual women on Facebook, I decided to report his comment to Facebook in order to see what would happen next. Roughly two hours later, Facebook sent me a message back telling me that his comment had not violated any of their standards for harassment or discrimination and that if I wanted to, I was free to block him. This reaction from Facebook was unsurprising to me and only reinforced the idea that there is a lack of regulation on public forums.
 
The issue of freedom of speech becomes a very slippery slope. People should be able to speak without fear of retribution but the question always has been; where do we draw the line? The FBI recently said that technological advances in connection with freedom of speech laws have made it more difficult than ever to combat cyber terrorism. How do we protect our citizens’ most precious right while simultaneously protecting our citizens’ from potential harm?
 
There is no way that we will ever be able to completely eradicate hatefulness or bigotry, but I believe there are steps that need to be taken to ensure that the same laws and rules that exist in the real world exist in the cyber world as well. People should be free to post what they want on their own, private wall, however public posts should be regulated in the same way that they would in real life. Threatening behavior or language should be met with removal from the site all-together. As consumers, it is our responsibility to advocate to Facebook to set up sensible regulations surrounding their website in order to promote an environment free from dangerous or threatening behavior.
 
 After emailing Facebook directly, I am anxiously awaiting their response on what can be done to fix this type of issue. Once they respond, I am hoping to touch base with someone who can discuss with me changes that can be made to protect potentially vulnerable people on their website. I am hoping that we as Social Workers will never become complacent and will continue to advocate for what is right despite how “normal” it seems to have become.
 
Please read more below on Social Work and freedom of speech:
 
https://prezi.com/bsynlpjjgsow/freedom-of-speech-in-social-work/
 
Kowalski, R. (2012). Cyberbulling: Bullying in the Digital Age. UK: Blackwell Publishing.

This week, I felt particularly inspired by Pope Francis's visit to the United States because of his speeches emphasizing the importance of loving and respecting our peers despite seemingly insurmountable differences.  In a country that only continues to become more and more polarized, how can we as social workers practice inclusivity and respect towards our colleagues, despite religious, spiritual, or other differences?  In this week's post, I was interested in exploring the intersectionality between spirituality and practice and what that means for us as social workers.  I looked this week specifically at the issue of respect among colleagues in the NASW Code of Ethics and how that connects with spirituality and religion.

As a Christian myself, sensitive topics have left me feeling ostracized from my faith on one hand and disconnected from the profession on the other.  When I first began my journey to become a social worker, someone told me that they thought that being a Christian seemed like an oxymoron if I was entering the field of social work.  I felt a wave of ambivalence upon hearing this statement and began questioning if I would have to leave my religion or pick a different career in order to succeed or be respected in the field.

I have found that saying that you are a Christian in the field of social work can be daunting. Historically, Christianity has served as both a force of good as well as an indisputable source of oppression and discrimination. (This is applicable to a variety of different religions and is not limited to Christianity in particular, however because I self-identify as a Christian, I have used this religion as an example.) Although social work was partially founded on a religious base, it made a quick shift from a religious establishment to a more scientific one, which resulted in a confusing transition between religion, spirituality and practice.

As long as our beliefs do not interfere with our practice, we as providers should be able to live our lives without judgement and should respect our peers' beliefs, regardless of how different those beliefs may be from our own. As time has passed, I have realized that I can be both a Christian and an effective social worker, as long as I am careful to not let my personal beliefs influence my practice. All religions, sexes, ethnicities, sexual orientations or any other factor should be met with tolerance among peers. With hateful and malicious rhetoric becoming increasingly the norm, why have we as a society grown so accustomed to divisiveness as opposed to practicing unfailing inclusiveness?

The Pope's message on climate change, economic inequality, a broken prison system and immigration were topics that went against a historically more conservative landscape.  The Pope reminded us that we can not and should not meet intolerance with intolerance.  As social workers, we are so accepting of our clients' opinions; isn't it time that we acted in the same way towards our colleagues?

If you are interested in reading more about religion and social work, please read the article below titled, "Inclusion of Content on Religion and Spirituality in the Social Work Curriculum: A Study of Faculty Views".

It was another hot day in Honolulu, Hawaii when I walked outside my apartment to see my neighbors being forced out of their apartment. Walter, a Chuukese immigrant who has lived in Hawaii for almost eight years, has lived in his one-bedroom apartment for close to three years with his two sons and his wife. One day, Walter received a letter from his landlord telling him that he had five days to pack up and move to a different location because they had violated their lease agreement. The letter stated that guests of any type were not allowed at this unit. Walter explained to me that in his collectivistic culture, it is common for families to get together frequently and he could not understand why they were being punished for having family over for dinners and gatherings. After acting as the overly-squeaky-wheel, only later did I find out that Walter and his family were being evicted because the landlord had decided to raise rent prices and redo the building. This was a story quite different from the one that Walter and his family had been told. The situation that Walter and his family are experiencing is unfortunately not unique to them but has been happening across the board to far too many immigrants coming to Hawaii from the Micronesian islands. Walter and his family will soon find themselves in the same dire position as many others: Homeless in Hawaii with little to no resources or opportunities.

Last week, Civil Beat published a fascinating article on homelessness in Hawaii that left many (including us Social Workers) questioning the legality and ethical ramifications behind the Sit Lie Laws. The premise behind the Sit Lie laws is that they will hypothetically encourage those who are reluctant to enter shelters to do so more quickly. “Compassionate Disruption”, as Mayor Kirk Caldwell calls the sweeps, are designed to protect small businesses and move people off of the streets and into shelters; ultimately resulting in them being housed and ending the cycle of homelessness at a faster pace. As shelters come close to reaching capacity and individuals with disabilities are being turned away, where are the homeless expected to go and what should we as Social Workers be doing for this disadvantaged population?

Walter and his family applied at a homeless shelter and were told to put their names on a waitlist and if something opened up, they would be notified. Almost a month later, and Walter had not received any news. If individuals, like Walter, are doing everything they can to succeed despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles, what can be done to ensure that these types of vulnerable populations are protected against blatant discrimination and oppression?