Quote:
Originally Posted by Etoile
First of all, let me say that I am not a church interpreter. I am fully certified (CI/CT) and I interpret professionally, but I will not interpret in church because I don't understand it. I am an atheist, I'm not familiar with any religion's practice (or their signs!), so I just don't do church interpreting. I would be providing a disservice to the deaf congregants by trying to interpret in their church.
You've brought up two issues. First, you are complaining that many churches don't or won't provide an interpreter. No argument from me here, but I think the burden is on you to push the issue. Have you explained what a qualified interpreter is, and why you feel they need one? Or have you just called 50 churches and gotten answers like "we have somebody who signs" and not pressed the issue? It's unfortunate that more people don't understand the importance of qualified interpreters, but the information isn't out there for them, so it is the deaf person's job to inform them what "qualified" means.
The second issue is that poor interpreters are denying deaf people full access to services. Well, yes. No arguments there either. And yes, the "signers" should know better...whoever taught them sign language should have informed them of the importance of using a qualified interpreter, and not "interpreting" if you don't know how. But many of them just want to help the best way they can, so they provide inadequate services because "it's better than nothing."
Perhaps instead of phrasing it as "bad interpreters send deaf people to hell" you could phrase it as "bad interpreters don't do enough to keep deaf people from hell." It's not like the interpreter is willfully sending someone to hell. They don't withhold their excellent interpreting skills so that a deaf person will go to hell. They just don't have the skills in the first place, and that is not a crime. Yes, they should know better, but they are NOT deliberately sending anyone anywhere as you suggest. In fact, I would bet that they sleep just fine, knowing that they are providing some access.
|
To answer your first question: Yes, I actually called and explained the whole nine yards including the purpose of hiring a qualified sign language interpreter and why it was important for them to have one. I explained that I was a member of one of their sister chruches and wanted to continue attending chruch on a regular basis. I even had numbers of several sign language interpreting agencies they can contact for more information. I went back and counted how many churches I had contacted: 48. I've spent over 70 hours making calls and talking with people. I've met some face-to-face. So I'm really trying here.
And yes, I agree my phrasing could be better. I was pretty frustrated when I typed out my first posting - and it shows. But what about in a legal situation...is it ok for a legal interpreter to provide "some" access? To me, that's like saying, "Well...that dude knows some of his legal rights - that's better than nothing."