BS: Religious child abuse

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 12:59 PM

Thanks for that...always interesting to find out what people are actually doing.
One of the strange things about mudcat is that when you meet the people in real life they are not at all like you imagine them to be from their writings.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 08:49 AM

"No good works are carried out by free thinking individuals and organizations."

                  That was a typo, as pointed out above. It should have read: No! Good works are carried out by free thinking individuals and organizations.


          "As a matter of interest...what do you do for the third world?"

          Geo - I work to try to put a stop to American corporate farm subsidies, and promote family planning.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 05:32 AM

It's true that many Christian organisations do a lot of good work – but so do a lot of secular organisations. Humanity and charity are not the prerogatives of religious belief. For example, I'm not a Christian (surprise, surprise!) but I've sponsored children in the third world for many years.

Jim is right in what he says. Christians have to face the fact that huge amounts of child abuse has been perpetrated in the name of Christ and, no matter how much you might say that these people are/were not true Christians, it doesn't alter that fact that they use Christianity to justify their actions, to their victims, to society and to themselves. This has often happened with collusion from church hierarchies – right up to the present day the Catholic church has been protecting paedophiles from the law. Cardinal Cormack O'Connor has himself been guilty of this.

What I have sought to point out is that Christianity is still being used to justify child abuse and if Christians believe that this is wrong, they should actively try to stop it happening in their midst – as the secular authorities try (not always successfully, of course) to stop it happening in society in general. Stop trying to justify it or pretend it doesn't happen - get off your arses and do something about it when it's happening right under your noses.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 03:31 AM

Georgiansilver,
People should be allowed to subscribe to whichever particular superstition they wish - that isn't the problem.
The (unelected) promoters of those superstitions should never be allowed to have a say in the running of running countries.
The church leadership has consistently thrown its support behind the most reactionary powers.
The Vatican stood by silently while Italian Jews were sent to the ovens, churchmen ran Franco's prisons and consistently the church heirarchy have supported the wealth against the poor.
Not to say there aren't any good Christians; but they really need to clean up their act.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 03:22 AM

My brother works for the Salvation Army and I always thought he walked that way because he had piles.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Feb 08 - 02:54 AM

Riginslinger...you have made a very bold statement there.>>>>>>>>>>No good works are carried out by free thinking individuals and organizations. Christian organizations are engaged in furthering their own ends<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I and many other Christians, have been involved in taking Humanitarian aid to Romania since the demise of their communist leaders and to Belarusse since the Chernobyl disaster. Childrens homes have been instated, street children have been rescued and orphanages have been brought up to some sensible standard of care as a result of Christian works.
What have those Christians asked for in return? I believe there are many Christian organisations who do such 'altruistic' work throughout the world....definitely NOT fo their own ends.
As a matter of interest...what do you do for the third world?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 10:40 PM

Only in the back. The Salvation Army does not take chances.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM

Do the castiron long johns have a little iron door at the front and the back?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 10:11 PM

Yes, yes, and yes. You would also be required to wear cast-iron long johns, and ring a bell in front of a kettle in between sets.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 10:04 PM

I don't think that being in the Salvation Army requires one to eat beef.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 07:28 PM

If I'm a Hindu, and I want to play a trombone for the Salvation Army, would they make me eat beef? Would "don't ask, don't tell," rules apply? Would I have to wear a John Philip Sousa hat?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 04:33 PM

Let us not be surreal. There are plenty of organizations who do good work to help others, and do it in the name of Christianity, Christ, or some part of the pantheon. It may be fair to say of most people doing this kind of work that it is their inherent individual qualilties that drive them, but it does not hurt them to have the concetrating effect of agreement with a group. In fact I am sure that many people participate in them who have no great convictions, little "Faith" in the organizational sense of the owrd, but who recogtnize a valuable vehicle when they see it.

But these are usually consenting adults exercising free choice.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 04:19 PM

Well, as long as she didn't have an affair with John McCain, it's all right with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 03:56 PM

I think she probably did grow out of it, Rinslinger. ;-) Look, she was only about maybe 10 or 11 years old, and she naturally believed what her parents told her. Who doesn't at that age? The thing is, she didn't believe it quite deep down enough to give me all her toys. She was hedging her bets. A of people do that when it comes to their supposed "beliefs".

You know why people talk? They like to hear themselves, and they like to have an audience, but most of all they just like to hear themselves. ;-) I know for a fact that this is true. That's why I do it, that's why Chongo does it, and that's why everybody here does it too. Their joy in hearing themselves talk considerably surpasses their real dedication to their expressed beliefs most of the time, in my opinion. I wait to be proven wrong.

If they couldn't vent their thoughts and feelings that way, they'd explode eventually.

She told me about the end of the world thing because it made her feel important and good to let someone else know about it. It was a hot piece of news, and she wanted to pass it on.

I was a born sceptic at that age, and a total disbeliever in anything religious OR spiritual, so I had a bit of fun with her...

Her name was Jeannie Tomkins. God knows where she is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 03:25 PM

You may wish to check your punctuation in your 12:38 post, Rig...

..and your reasoning, too. Many Christian organizations DO excellent works despite their basic orientation. A hungry man doesn't care much who feeds him, and not all religious groups expect something for their charity.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 03:07 PM

LH - You've got to wonder if she grew out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 12:49 PM

I can only speak for myself, but I don't recall any specific instance of being abused by a religious child. ;-)

Mind you, I do recall having been abused by children a long time ago, but not because they were religious...just because they were mean little bastards!

There was one kid I knew whose parents belonged to some Christian group who thought the world was going to end on a certain day. She assured me that that was the case, that it was all going to end. So I said, "Well, give me all your toys then, cos you won't be needing them." She refused. I knew right then that her faith was not as rock solid as she thought it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 12:38 PM

No good works are carried out by free thinking individuals and organizations. Christian organizations are engaged in furthering their own ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 12:16 PM

Could it possibly be that in a country where Christianity is the majority religion, good works are predominantly carried out by Christian organizations?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 09:19 AM

His argument is that if organizations doing good works publically are all treated evenly, it shouldn't matter if they are based in faith or in simple goodwill. This sounds good but is a specious coverup as the actual flow of funds is predominantly to Christian organizations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Feb 08 - 08:31 AM

Oh, he's WAY over the line. Congress is taking it lying down because the alternative would be to support the secular, which is seen as political suicide for some reason I have yet to fathom.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 08 - 10:03 PM

But when G. W. Bush takes public money to support "faith based" organizations, isn't he stepping over the line, and how could he have gotten such proposals by Congress and the courts?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Kent Davis
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 10:13 PM

Yes.

Thanks!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:42 PM

Did that answer your questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 08:38 PM

You're very welcome, Kent. You don't get this sort of thing in the other on-line music forums, where they just talk about mandolin strings and such;-)

Anyway, the section establishes the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts--and it does that by moving the primary jurisdiction for most things out of the Supreme Court and into the Federal Courts, thereby reserving the Supreme Court for final appeals, unless Congress specifies that a specific issue can only be heard by the Supreme Court--simple as that.

The First Amendment injunction respecting establishment of religion has tended to be interpreted as a) preventing Congress from attempting to regulate religious practice b) preventing the establishment of a State religion c) preventing the legal supression of religious sects.

The Founding Fathers wanted our government and leaders to act in accordance with laws that were agreed upon by men, as a product of their collective intellects, rather than in accordance with the sort of "Divine Right" that had been so abused by European Monarchs.

So basically, God is not to be mentioned in the law at all, either as the authority that justifies governmental action, or as something to be controlled by governmental action.

A lot of the people who came to this country had been persecuted in Europe because of their religious beliefs, and their numbers included Freethinkers, NeoPlatonists, Deists, Anabaptists, Hugenots, Jews, Catholics, and a bunch of others--they simply wanted the freedom to practice their religion, and they feared governments most, owing to the fact that governments, and their rulers, had tended to massacre them--

Sorry for going on--

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,GUEST, KENT DAVIS
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 06:25 PM

Thanks for the civics lesson, M. Ted. I love civics.

I understand that the purpose of the section I quoted is to establish the Supreme Court's primary and appellate jurisdictions. I also see that the power Congress has in this matter is the power to remove items from appellate jurisdiction. What I don't see, not yet anyway, is why something removed from Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction automatically enters their primary jurisdiction. Why couldn't something simply be removed from their appellate jurisdiction and thus be removed from their jurisdiction altogether? (I understand why it would be a bad idea. What I don't understand is why it would be unconstitutional.)

Also, if you don't mind, explain how the Brownbacker bill would constitute a law respecting "an establishment of religion", and thus violate the First Amendment. Surely you're not saying that the bill would constitute an establishment of religion, are you?   

Thanks for your help,

Kent (away from home)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 12:08 PM

Whether my interpretation of the proposed bill is accurate or NOT (I am not an expert in legalese), it is still clear that the Brownback coterie are attempting to tilt the legal scales in favor of religious views. They may not have succeeded in THIS case, but they have shown that they will try many ways to break down the constitutional separation of church & state.


and the set of videos on YouTube about child evangelists is chilling!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 11:41 AM

For you, Kent Davis, a little lesson in civics--

Article III of our glorious Constitution established the Federal Court system.

Section 2 describes the areas where the Federal Courts will have primary jurisdiction (and specifies that the Supreme Court has apellate jurisdiction) and the part that you quote means simply that the Congress can assign primary jurisdiction on particular issues to the Supreme Court, rather than the Federal Courts, if it wants to.

It doesn't mean that Congress can prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on any specific issue--

If the Brownback Bill forbids action against a Federal Agency or Representative on the basis of refererence or respect to "God", then it violates the first Amendment clause about freedom of religion. If it forbids any legal action against Federal Agencies or their agents, it violates the clause about right to petition--meaning that, if, on the thinest thread of a chance, it is passed into law, there will be a constitutional challenge to it.

You have to hand it to Brownback and the boys--they are ambitious--most people would violate just one of our Constitutional Rights and call it a day;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Alice
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM

Back to the thread initial post, here is video from Baby Bible Bashers.

The father is exploiting this child.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NGoMfrOSLAY

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 09:16 AM

Hey, I had my kids sleep on the floor, so that if we needed them to, they could sleep on the floor. That was my eldest sister's advice after another sister came to stay, there weren't enough beds, and her (visiting sister's) kids couldn't sleep on the floor. We also made noise when they were sleeping, so you wouldn't have to shut up for them to sleep. Nothing religious about it, but the boys would sleep comfortably anywhere and under any circumstances, which was good for us parents! But we didn't teach them to behead anything...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 04:07 AM

A few years ago in South America an 11 year old girl from an itinerant labouring family was raped by a farmer when she called to his home asking for water.
Some time later it was found that she had contacted syphillis, and when she was sent to the hospital she was discovered to be pregnant.
Unfortunately the doctors in the (church run) hospital chose not to tell the parents of her condition until it was legally too late for her to have the foetus aborted, even though they had come to the conclusion that she was was unlikely to survive the pregnancy.
The parents requested permission for an abortion to be carried out and were refused, both on legal and religious grounds. The local bishop told them that the girl should "embrace her martyrdom proudly".
Wisely, the parents found a humanist doctor who performed the operation and saved the child's life.
Words fail me too.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: theleveller
Date: 19 Feb 08 - 03:20 AM

It has emerged that Sharviz Khan, the terrorist who has just been sentenced to life for his plot to behead a Muslim British soldier made his 5-year old son sleep on the floor to toughen him up for the fundamentalist Islamic struggle and, amongst other things, taught him how to behead someone.

Religious child abuse at its most extreme. Words fail me.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Kent Davis
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 11:12 PM

I don't know what it has to do with whether or not those little evangelists are being abused, but the discussion has turned to Senator's Brownbaker's 2005 bill. The following may therefore be of interest:

1. The bill was represented as: "They introduced a bill to **tell the Supreme Court that it cannot do ANYTHING to interfere with ANY government officer or agency which acts as though "God" is the ultimate source OF law & government**"

The bill does NOT say that. Under the bill, the Supreme Court could continue to interfere with any government officer or agents to the same extent as always, regardless of whether or not the officer or agent said God is the ultimate source, with one exception only: it cannot interfere MERELY on the basis of the acknowledgment ITSELF.

Let's say that a judge somewhere wanted to place, in his courtroom, a bronze plaque with the 10 Commandments on it. Under the Brownback proposal, the Supreme Court could still review that action, and could still forbid that action. What they could not do is forbid the action MERELY because it was an acknowledgement of God. If they forbade it, they would have to do so on other grounds.

That is what the bill actually says. It would remove from judicial review actions "TO THE EXTENT THAT RELIEF IS SOUGHT against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), CONCERNING THAT ENTITY'S, OFFICER'S, OR AGENT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD AS THE SOVEREIGN SOURCE OF LAW, LIBERTY, OR GOVERNMENT." (Emphasis mine.)

2. Please re-read the U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SECTION 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." (Emphasis mine.)

Whether the Constitution should allow such an exception is a matter of opinion. But since it does allow it, we can't very well say that Brownbacker's proposal is unconstitional, can we?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 09:10 PM

The trick is for education to promote the viewpoint that is reliably documented (emphasis on the Reliable, not the Document, of course, hee hee).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 08:47 PM

"It's impossible to imagine a system of education that didn't involve promoting a viewpoint...."..etc

ummm...yes, I guess so, Kevin. Though I'm not sure what that shows. It 'almost' becomes a tautology to state it.
Education can promote careful and reasonable study of alternatives and employ techniques to make this possible. I have, thankfully, had a few teachers & courses during my education that did a very good job of explaining fairness, reason and leaving ultimate decisions to the student. Now...I suppose that can be interpreted as 'stacking the deck' against narrowness and self-interest..*wry smile*... I kinda like that sort of one-sidedness.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 07:26 PM

Too bad it isn't. That's rather an encouraging statistic, if it means that two out of three Americans think that is an expression of a basic human right.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 07:18 PM

BillD--I am always depressed by the results of those surveys--if only because it shows how little people really understand. There was a survey a while back in which 2/3rd of the respondents thought that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was part of the bill of rights. I am just amazed that we've survived as well as we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 05:20 PM

It's impossible to imagine a system of education that didn't involve promoting a viewpoint. Setting out not to promote a viewpoint is in itself a viewpoint, and this viewpoint is promoted in the process.

With the proviso that any attempt to promote a viewpoint (including that last one) can sometimes have the effect of undermining that viewpoint, so far as the recipients are concerned. As several people posting here have indicated in regard to their own education.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,arran
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 02:58 PM

I live in Scotland however I have spent holidays in Australia, i've been 8-9 times and I plan to go out again

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 02:46 PM

nice link, M. Ted.

There's also a poll noted on that page about Americans' views on the 1st amendment and related issues. It is unusual in that it reports various scholars impressions and interpretations of the poll.

There are,it seems a lot of people who 'believe' various things about out history, the intent of the founding fathers, and the place of religion in our society. It does not say much about whether these were informed beliefs...except to note that many had fuzzy notions about the details of the Constitution and the place of Christianity in the lives of its founders.

An expanded commentary on this situation is in this section by Charles Haynes"What part of 'secular nation' do we not understand?"

It seems a lot of 'belief' is little more than wishful thinking in some areas. Education could do more to clarify this, but it seems that there is also a lot of resistance to 'education' that fails to promote certain viwepoints. Kind of a vicious circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 01:01 PM

For an interesting insight into this issue, listen to the Feb 14 Show of InterFaith Voices t and check the segment, "The Faiths of our Founding Fathers"--a very nice discussion of "Deism"--

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 12:04 PM

(needed a super-duper pooper scooper?)

and ..100

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 12:01 PM

(Amos...horseshit it may be...but ubiquitous horseshit)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 11:47 AM

"..."an" is an all important little word in there, don't you think?"

no... My 'misquote' is irrelevant in this context.


"...I have to argue that those same positions were not extreme. They were, as you say, the "norm"."

That is either irrelevant nit-picking or superficial reading of the point I was making - perhaps both.

slowly...Positions that we, today, view as extreme, were once the norm...(as you say) THEREFORE, because religious positions change over time, there is no particular reason to say that any of them are 'more' correct than others...except subjectively.

"But virtually every instance appealed to divine authority to bolster and substantiate whatever code they were attempting to enforce."
   Yes...and thank you for helping to make my point. *IF* they made such appeals, when "divine authority" could not possibly support all the requests for support, the conclusion ought to be that there is NO rational way to base a code on any 'divine authority'. Yet, we have regular attempts, both silly & serious, to insert such things into the various legal codes in order to control the behavior of those who do not recognize religious authority!
   (the most obvious examples of issues which regularly arise are abortion, prayer in schools, teaching of evolution, display of religious themes on public property, insertion of "under God" in our Pledge of Allegience, placement of "In God We Trust" on our money...etc..)
   

finally, you say you agree with me....."the proposed legislation looks pretty harebrained. With the First Amendment in place it is wholly unneeded."...yet, it WAS proposed: and it feels very much like an attempt to weaken aspects of the 1st amendment, or to define a specific interpretation of it.

I keep responding to some of these threads and arguments because there is an ongoing implication that because there were some various historical religious themes in our past, the imposition of laws based on them is somehow justified. Lest you be tempted to make light of this, I note that I hear regularly assertions that 'we are a Christian nation'. We are NOT...we are a nation which protects the right to BE Christian....a position I approve of, as long as I can safely and comfortably be non-Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 10:55 AM

the history of LAW will always show a trail back to God, religion. All human history traces back to religion and God or gods or divine percepts

I am terribly sorry, but I think this precept is horseshit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 10:48 AM

Sorry to have ruffled your tender feathers, theleveller--"slacker" is often used as a term of congenial fraternity--

As to the "Shoot the messenger" comment, you might be surprised to know that, even though I am an American, I've never shot anyone--

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 10:42 AM

Here in Texas when a discussion gets heated and tempers are about to flare we often change the subject by saying "So - How about them Cowboys??" { an American football team }.

Let me paraphrase and say "So - How about them Scientologists?".

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 10:04 AM

Surely "good Mudcat posting practice" indicates that when a link would be useful, and has not been supplied, you just put in the link yourself, preferably without further comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: theleveller
Date: 18 Feb 08 - 03:54 AM

"At least you could have made an effort to look him up, and posted a link. Let people judge for themselves--you didn't even bother to post his full name. Typical internet slacker, you. "

That's right, MTed, avoid the issue and shoot the messenger. Are you the self-appointed arbiter of good Mudcat posting practice? If you've something appropriate to add to the discussion, plesae do so; otherwise do us all a favour and shut the f**k up.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Slag
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:47 PM

Bill D! I can't believe you misquoted the Constitution! You were just testing me, right? To see if I really knew? "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:..." Emphasis mine. "an" is an all important little word in there, don't you think?

When you state that the extreme positions were the norm then I have to argue that those same positions were not extreme. They were, as you say, the "norm". It is only from a subsequent historical perch that one may cast a position as extreme only because the historic point of view has evolved or shifted. It only appears extreme because of current popular views.

Something that is extreme stands out in its own time, wouldn't you agree?

I was not arguing that laws SHOULD be based on religion or even religious ideals. I was merely stating that it is world history that demonstrates that for the great bulk of history religion and the state were one and that religious laws WERE the state's laws. That's all. Not all countries or governmental institutions had the same religion, the same laws, dealt with the same problems or what have you. But virtually every instance appealed to divine authority to bolster and substantiate whatever code they were attempting to enforce.

Yes we are enlightened, aren't we? We DO see the common sense of most of our basic laws. It only took six thousand, plus years to arrive at our enlightenment. I'm also certain that throughout history most of the folk understood the intent of the general laws was to establish some system of justice, of fair(er) play. And there undoubtedly there were always a few scumbags around to try and subvert the same for their own advantage. That's human nature.

And lastly I agree with you that the proposed legislation looks pretty harebrained. With the First Amendment in place it is wholly unneeded.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 06:53 PM

Man, I go offline for a weekend, and what happens?

From my angle, I taught my kids all the mythologies I knew of, including the current monotheisms, and I always called the stories myths. When the twins got old enough to be skeptical of santa and the easter bunny and zeus and the one just called "god" we would have long discussions about why so many people thought "god" (but not any of the gods with names like zeus or ra) was real. I don't recall them going through any phase of believing in "god" but not in santa; in fact, belief in santa outlasted all the others for quite a while.

My fear, here in these United States (well, one of my fears) is the encroachment of mythology into the realm of science. Teaching kids to ignore or refuse reality and cling to their parents' mythos is child abuse. Buggering the altar boy is child abuse. Threatening wee ones with torture for small wrongs is child abuse. Not sparing the rod is child abuse. But those aren't the sole purview of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 06:52 PM

"Are you actually suggesting that they are not? *grin*...no Kevin..only that they intend to be the ONLY 'stream' of Christianity, if at all possible.


*sigh* Slag,I gotta explain it, I guess.

"That's not thread drift, that's a hijacking!"

Not at all, if you consider the point of my question. It is quite common for fairly moderate defenders of religious doctrine to dismiss 'awkward' positions of others by just calling them 'extreme' or "outside the mainstream"...etc.
   For a large part of history, extreme positions were the mainstream...and there are many examples of it in world news today....so the questions always remains: Why aren't the extremists right? THEY are sure they are. The three Senators ..and others... would clearly prefer a situation where religious rules, not just historical influences, controlled the legal functions of the country.
   When you say that "All human history traces back to religion and God or gods or divine percepts.", you introduce an implied value judgement. Perhaps YOU don't actually mean that, because of history, it makes sense to base law on religion, but others do, and the distinction gets pretty fuzzy. Obviously, with different religions and versions OF religions, there are contradictory positions that cannot all be institutionalized in the laws of a single country....at least in most Christian-majority countries. (I had to insert 'majority' in that sentence, in order to avoid even the linguistic implication that any *country* can be Christian.)

I am certainly aware that there is a compelling feeling to the idea that.. "the history of LAW will always show a trail back to God, religion.", but all it really shows is that there is usually religious agreement & support for many of the ideas in a legal system.
It can easily be argued that most of those principles could be defended without recourse to religion, and that they make sense on their own. It does not require religion to realize, as a general principle, that killing other people is not a good idea. But religion often DOES wish to define the exceptions to that principle...for its own purposes? Hard to prove sometimes, but it sure seems like it when you REALLY study history.

There IS a point to having a Constitution such as the USA does, that both protects the right to 'freedom of religion', and also states that there shall be "no law respecting establishment of religion".
It is imperative that we all understand that "freedom OF religion" must include "freedom FROM religion" for those who so choose...and I wish that Brownback and others could realize that.

"You don't win an argument by censoring your opposition.
Of course not! In fact, one seldom 'wins' these arguments at all! Too bad those who introduce bills such as the one mentioned don't realize that.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 06:30 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM

Brownback seems to have been converted to Catholicism by Fr. John McCloskey, who is a noted member of Opus Dei, Mr. McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Slag
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM

Gosh Bill D, you are usually a bit more thoughtful than that post. Maybe it should have its own thread. This was about certain PEOPLE who abuse children in various forms under the GUISE of religious instruction, not about the right of someone to believe that God or his god or the Great Pumpkin is the ultimate SOURCE of law in general. That's not thread drift, that's a hijacking!

What do you believe the ultimate source of LAW is? Hmmm? Whatever it is you think, I can oppose it. Should I attempt to get the powers that be to help me quash your point of view? Did you ASSUME that I might be in favor of that piece of proposed legislation? That's a pretty prejudicial assumption.

To answer the more pertinent question above: no, Protestantism is no more exempt from the presence of abusers than the RCC. The RCC affords greater anonymity because of its numbers and near ubiquity. It's hierarchy and certain theological stances, dogmas make it more susceptible to practitioners of abuse. No organization, repeat: NO ORGANIZATION is exempt from abuse and abusers. No set of laws or bylaws, no structuring is capable of preventing the same, though some organizational structures are better than others. Checks and balances, accountability and openness are key to minimizing the abuse of children and on a grander scale, the abuse of anyone! Protestantism has the identical problems on a much smaller or better, perhaps, scattered scale. The number of incidents may even be proportionally comparable but that's just a guess on my part.

Back to Bill D's diversion, the history of LAW will always show a trail back to God, religion. All human history traces back to religion and God or gods or divine percepts. Religion has always been an integral part of the societies of Man and the church or temple laws WERE the societal laws. Remember the the concept of separation of church and state is historical very new, cutting edge, only within the last couple of hundred years as opposed to several thousands of years of the other way of thinking. Let people think as their conscience dictates. Let them have the freedom of speech, to express those ideas. In an open market place of ideas the idea will stand on its own merits. You don't win an argument by censoring your opposition. I would dare say that you would wind up drawing attention and sympathy to it instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 03:51 PM

wonder, Slag, if you consider Senators Shelby, Brownback & Burr "outside the mainstream of Christianity"?

Are you actually suggesting that they are not?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 03:41 PM

I am not worried about that bill becoming law--the Congress can't pass a law that is exempted from judicial review--it wouldn't be a law then. would it? The Supreme Court is very protective of the balance of power, they do not look favorably on anything that would restrict their obligation to review the actions of the Federal Government and agents thereof.

However, the fact that Senators Brownback, Shelby, and Burr contrived such a document reflects either great cynicism on their parts, knowing that, though it had no chance of becoming law, or an effort to undermine the constitution--So either they are cynical oportunistic bastards, or treasonous bastards.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 02:53 PM

Slag said yesterday..."Jim Jones was so far out of the mainstream of Christianity..."

Did anyone read the link that John in Kansas posted just above that?

I wonder, Slag, if you consider Senators Shelby, Brownback & Burr "outside the mainstream of Christianity"?

They introduced a bill to **tell the Supreme Court that it cannot do ANYTHING to interfere with ANY government officer or agency which acts as though "God" is the ultimate source OF law & government**


Is THIS 'mainstream Christianity' at work?

"...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'."

It looks like more & more attempts are being made to make "Religious child abuse" irrelevant by making almost anything "in the name of God" unchallengeable....

I read that several times, and despite the legalese, that is the impression I get as to the direction some wish the country to go...even Mike Huckabee 'wishes' to amend the Constitution in this way. What are we to think?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Kent Davis
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM

I thought this thread was about Protestant parents who (allegedly) abuse their children in pushing them to become young evangelists. Why then all the discussion of pederastic Roman Catholic priests?

It is hardly possible to imagine two sorts of child abuse (or alleged abuse) that have less in common. The first is done by parents; the second in defiance of, and in secrecy from, parents. The first is apparently a perversion of parental pride; the second a perversion of erotic desire. The first is (apparently) legal; the second is clearly felonious. The first is done openly, literally while the cameras are rolling; the second is shrouded in secrecy. The first is called, by those doing it, an act of righteousness; the second is called, by those doing it, an abomination.

Lumping those two together under the heading "religious child abuse" makes about as much sense as, in a discussion of Nat Turner, bringing up Idi Amin. Yes, both could fit under the heading "violent people with dark skin", but they really don't have much in common, do they? What if someone claimed that they really did have a lot in common? Wouldn't you suggest that they examine themselves to see if their prejudices were clouding their judgment?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

Whoever wrote that article on Little Man needs an editor badly!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 12:30 PM

Well, hell, Ted, you've just disqualified my first line of causative, responsible social action!! Kind of skews the discussion, don't you think?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 12:20 PM

My question for all of you is, seeing this abuse, and knowing that it is going on, what have you done about it? And posting a smarmy, snarky, cynical comment on the internet does not count.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 12:00 PM

Ah well, if you don't believe in hell or God, Jim. he's not gonna like it I'd estimate it was a couple of million years with a red hot poker up the roozle at least for you. It could change your entire view of what is folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,Tolerance
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 11:41 AM

Since victims of abuse often grow up to be abusers themselves I'm suprised that these victims aren't watched closely.Shouldn't someone be keeping track of them? Maybe a code could be implanted in their drivers license. It might be a good way to nip this thing in the bud.End the abuse now and make the world safe for free thinkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 11:13 AM

That's the kind of abuse I was speaking of; even if you had accepted the information with equanimity instead of terror it would still completely mess up your thinking about the world, no? The best possible outcome you could hope for would be to conclude that the adults in whose charge you were were a bunch of idiots, not the healthiest of conclusions itself, even if the least of the possible harms.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 11:07 AM

As a child, I went to a Catholic Primary School ( from 4 to 11 years of age), and I remember being told that if I deliberately missed going to mass on Sunday, and then was knocked down and killed on Monday, I would go straight to hell. If that is not abusing children, I don't know what is!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:56 AM

"Maybe we should impose a special tax on religions?"


                      If they just paid the same taxes as everybody else, it would be find with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM

Tolerance,

Your sense of irony is working overtime! LD Maybe we should impose a special tax on religions?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,Tolerance
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 10:32 AM

Maybe seperation is the best answer.If the religious types could be offered a large portion of land - the Austrailian outback comes to mind - they could be offered enough tax incentives to make it worthwhile to move there. And then send the rest of them that refuse to go. Then the world would be safe for freethinkers like ourselves. Let them have their churches, rituals and abuse as long as they leave us alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 07:56 AM

.........that happened in a lot of schools...........I should have added by ordinary dinner ladies. We don't call them dinner ladies now, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 07:49 AM

M. Ted

I meant the semolina and tapioca.

If you read my previous posts you will see that I was talking about (Jesuit priests) and nuns forcing children to eat food until they were sick. I call that child abuse and it is by religious people. However, McGrath of Harlow pointed out that that happened in a lot of schools. I was just indicating (and trying to be humorous at the same time!!!!!!) that it was not my experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 05:57 AM

Are other formal religions any better?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Slag
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 05:48 AM

Yes Riginslinger, wouldn't that be lovely. So few schools teach students how to think, how to think for themselves and right from wrong, i.e., basic morality. Many so called teacher don't know how to think so how can they teach the subject? When I mention logic it is usually met with a stony silence! Huh? Whadda ya mean RULES of logic? There are RULES???

The RCC has been sweeping it's perversion under the rug for centuries. After all, Christ's Vicar on Earth cannot be wrong. This has been one of the main criticisms against the RCC: the Doctrine of Infallibility. Thank God it is finally being addressed by the hierarchy, as the stench of crime by certain priests can no longer be hid or ignored. When a person or a group place themselves above the laws which are meant to be over all, the sinful nature of Man seems to always rise to the occasion. It was this doctrine (of infallibility) which prompted the famous utterance "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" We don't need any more proof of this truth, just some justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 05:20 AM

The Magdalene Laundry system, where young women who had 'strayed' and were sent for 'correction' allowed these 'sinners' to be enslaved, raped and physically and mentally abused on a regular basis, by the staff, by the clerics who oversaw them and, on occasion, by wealthy and influential 'benefactors' looking for 'fresh meat'.
The last laundry closed its doors in the 1990s.
It was not the 'occasional' priest who did the main damage, but the system which allowed them to practice and which protected them when they 'overstepped the mark'.
I wish I believed in hell so I could believe that's where they would all end up.
Perhaps if I believed in god I could blame him for letting it happen.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Feb 08 - 12:03 AM

If you look at some of the horrifying things that a certain sort of people think up on their oddy nocky, you get some insight into why society came up with the idea of laws and morality and religion and such things in the first place.

Of course, in creating laws, etc, society gave some people power over others, which made it possible for a certain sort of people to do those horrifying things on a larger scale. But if you go and eliminate all the religion, and all the morality, and just as much of anything else as you want, and people are not going to behave any better.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:58 PM

At the end of the day, with Jim Jones the problem was, as I see it, a bunch of lost people were following somebody who offered them something better. I think that pretty well describes Christianity and all of the other religions I'm in any way familiar with.
                   I submit that the world would be a better place if folks would just take it upon themselves to think independantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Greg B
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:57 PM

Quoth Georgiansilver:

>You cannot tar all priests with the same brush.

Perhaps not. But one CAN tar the 'clerical caste' with that brush.

Those who were not abusing turned blind eyes towards their brethren
who were exploiting. Not just children but vulnerable adults who
were taken in by the spiritual intensity and power wielded by these
men.

Oh, it's just a slip. Bless me father, for I have sinned, please
transfer me to a distant parish or another diocese...

Here

Read it and weep.

Sorry, but it isn't at all inconsistent with the 'retrospect' of this
Catholic boy who was considering a vocation to the priesthood or
religious life, and was close to a lot of priests. Or at least the
retrospect of what I found about them years later.

My own spiritual mentor and director, and exploiter of multiple
young men.

Another mentor who was a drunk and finally had the ultimate
'meltdown' and took up with a man 30 years his junior and works
the fine jewelry counter at Macy's.

Yet another who conspired with the first mentor (above) to bust up
an engagement so he could have a crack at the young man, breaking
the seal of the confessional in the process. BUT he was real proud
of marching next to MLK and making the front page of the Montgomery
AL paper!

My high school principal (CSC, go Irish) who buggered a young man
who came to him for help after being buggered by another CSC. Said
young man is now serving life for the brutal murder of his wife. Other
CSC, deceased, had a boy living with him in the rectory after leaving
CSC for the renowned St. John's seminary in Camarillo and joining
the Diocese of Santa Rosa, Ca. Pity the poor orphaned kid who they
took in for two years...

Shall we talk Jesuits? Let's talk John Powell SJ or Mother Theresa's
confessor, the notorious Fr. McGuire, shall we? At least he took them
to Europe to diddle them---

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Slag
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:50 PM

Jim Jones was so far out of the mainstream of Christianity and so bizarre in his "theology" that NO ONE who rightly goes by the name Christian would ever have associated him or his "religion" with the same. It kind of reminds me of some of these scumbag politicians shouting "How dare you question my patriotism!?" Jones hid behind the banner of Christ the same way scumbag politicos hide behind the Stars and Stripes. As I so painstakingly pointed out above, it's not the organization they are hiding behind, it's the abuser himself (herself, if you want to include the very few women who fit the profile). Condemn the abuser, not the Gillie* suit<[went with Spell Check on that one!] they happen to be wearing.

*Suit worn by snipers to hide while doing their deadly work.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:45 PM

Yes, and it was an abusive experience!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:26 PM

Yeh the tapioca, the semolina and the holy ghost....

Something like that anyway.....wassa matter, you never been to church...?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:19 PM

I meant the semolina and tapioca.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 09:22 PM

Because Jim Jones, a well known American Christian leader, abused people completely to death, but only the ones under 18 years of age could be qualified as child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 08:18 PM

And this relates to "Religious Child Abuse" because...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 07:03 PM

I used to have seconds of the semolina and tapioca too! I'm not joking.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 07:02 PM

Ordinary dinner ladies used to do that, and they didn't need to be nuns.

That never happened to me - I was one of the ones who LOVED school dinners. My mum was an excellent cook and couldn't understand how I could say "I wish you made custard like they do at school" - when everyone else complained that it was lumpy! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 06:37 PM

No Comment

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 06:26 PM

Is this the person that you're talking about, theleveller?Terry Dunham, "The Little Man of God"

At least you could have made an effort to look him up, and posted a link. Let people judge for themselves--you didn't even bother to post his full name. Typical internet slacker, you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 06:00 PM

certain foods which were forced down him, Ordinary dinner ladies used to do that, and they didn't need to be nuns.

As for "academic subjects, nothing that was fun" and "discipline was harsh" - insofar as that was true a generation or two back, it was true in secular schools as well. And the most entertaining teacher I ever knew was a Jesuit - and in an academic subject at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM

My husband was taught by Jesuit priests and nuns, discipline was harsh and they only did academic subjects, nothing that was fun. Having said that he is one of the most well adjusted people you could meet - apart from his dislike of certain foods which were forced down him, until he was sick, by the nuns!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:29 PM

"every single report I have ever had from people who went to schools run by nuns...etc etc

I don't know how you went about getting those reports, Richard - but it's way out of line with what I've come across, first hand and second hand.

Maybe what's involved is the same process that seems to ensure that the vast majority of published accounts of childhood generally are about people having terrible childhoods. I came across a whole section in a bookshop which was reserved for them. And yet most childhoods are probably pretty happy - not perfect, because life isn't perfect, but pretty good.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Slag
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:48 PM

Abuse IS their business!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:09 PM

And no one has mentioned the military yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Slag
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:06 PM

The credo of child abuse is "Child Abuse" regardless of whatever type of camouflage they employ. The chameleon character of the abuser is symptomatic and includes virtually any walk of life. Cops, ministers, congressmen, teachers, taxi drivers, psychologist and so on. To begin a thread about religious child abuse initial hit me as a bit biased but I lay aside my own bias to analyze the given.

Sexual child abuse does find cover in the various acceptable and even honorable occupations of mankind. It is vile and rightly condemned by any person of decent moral character. Even convicts in prison have a code higher than the child abuse and they, in solidarity, have a way of dealing with them if the said abuser are found to be among that population.

The type of abuse of over-regimentation and brainwashing that certain religious practitioners commit is different than sexual abuse although they somehow have a way of operating hand-in-hand. I believe it becomes attractive to the controlling, power monger because of the degree of isolation that is afforded by being out of the mainstream and a certain distrust of the secular system. It is an ideal situation for the abusers, in that isolation is one of the key elements of abuse of any sort. Non-acceptance and intolerance on either side greatly helps to isolate these elements. Throw in denominationalism and the autonomy of local churches and the idea of being the big duck in a little pond will bring out the nature of the abuser.

This, by no means, limits abuse to this scenario. It just creates a more perfect environment for it. Teachers become little gods or dictators, or worse. Prison guards, shrinks. They all establish a little bailiwick where they become only answerable to themselves. In order to have a healthy society every member ought to be answerable to every other member in someway, thus promoting responsibility. Trust but verify! Ever hear that before?

The collateral abuse falls upon religion itself and gives the general enterprise a great big black eye. Any religion! It is little wonder that organized religion is finding itself on the defensive. A lot of the criticism is well deserved for not policing their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 03:13 PM

And around and around it goes....

The point must be made that much religious indoctrination is not physical abuse, and perhaps not really emotional abuse as such -- a benevolent education into Christianity is no scarier than listening to environmentalists declaim, I suppose -- but the issue that is being avoided is whether indoctrination with false or authoritarian data is intellectual abuse. I believe that it can be. The alphabet is a tool, for managing the interface with the social world. So 's potty training and multiplication tables. So even though they may not be fully understood, they are data that the growing child finds referents for and can learn to think clearly with. This is not the case with views of Godhood and the often qwuirky and nonsensical moral structures handed about to children in religious communities of one or another sort -- not just Christian, as anyone who has read Infidel can tell you. But in this culture, they have the majority of the pattern.

Any way, we have no common parlance for this sort of intellectual abuse, and therefore the assertion can easily be rejected. But that makes it none the less true, founded and valid (except under the law).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 02:00 PM

"Perhaps if we limit identified Christians to one child per couple we could lessen the damage they are capible of doing."

             G Tolerance - That's a great idea!



                   "I saw a documentary called Jaws..."


             WLD - I saw that same documentary.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Alice
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 01:43 PM

A dictionary definition of child abuse is mistreatment including neglect, beating, and sexual molestation. It doesn't matter what belief system excuses the abuser, abuse is still abuse. It has nothing to do with religious intolerance. Abuse is abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 01:36 PM

Australians take their kids to the beach and get their heads bitten off by sharks. And Americans. You can say it's not abuse, but its not your head getting bit off.

I saw a documentary called Jaws and everybody in this town wouldn't let the Sherriff close the beach and stop the heads getting bitten off.

Capitalist bastards eh....?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,Tolerance
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 01:30 PM

China has had some success by limiting couples to one child per family. Perhaps if we limit identified Christians to one child per couple we could lessen the damage they are capible of doing. It's worth considering. Then in a few generations their numbers would dwindle and the world would be a better place - and safer for those of us who favor freedom of thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Kent Davis
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM

I worked with abused children for nearly 10 years, mostly as a supervisor in treatment programs but, very briefly, as a child protectective service worker.   

I have not seen "Baby Bible Bashers" so I can't comment on the show itself, and obviously have no knowledge of whether or not those children are being abused.

I will comment on the information that theleveller provided, because it shows important points about child protective service work. First, I appreciate his concern in bringing the information to our attention. However, it does those children little good that the allegations are on Mudcat. Anyone who believes that the children are being abused has a moral obligation to report the abuse to the relevant authorities. U.S. citizens in certain professions also have a legal obligation to report it. Reports can usually be made by calling a "child abuse hotline". If no one has contacted the child protective service workers in the children's home counties, then no investigation will take place. If there is no investigation, there will be no intervention.   

Second, when child protective service workers get an allegation of abuse, they must consider two issues: is the allegation VALID and is the allegation FOUNDED. We'll consider the second issue first. An allegation is FOUNDED if it is shown to be true. (However, it does not necessarily need to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt"; the standard of proof is not the same as in a criminal court.)

The other issue is whether the allegation is VALID. An allegation is VALID if the action reported WOULD BE abuse IF it were true.

Imagine that you are a child protective services worker. You get a call from a woman worried about the way her son's ex-girlfriend is raising their children. The grandmother says, "That woman smokes, and drinks beer, and sits around watching HBO. She hardly ever cooks (unless you call throwing something in the microwave "cooking") and the house is a mess and she never reads to the children. She lets her new boyfriend stay overnight, and she says curse words in front of the children, and she lets the third-grader stay up till 9 p.m., and she lets the older girl wear tight skirts way above her knees. Can't you take the children away?" What would you tell this grandmother?

I don't know how it is in other countries, but in the U.S. you would have to say something like, "No, I can't take the children away, not unless there is more to the story than you are telling me. Even if everything you say is true, those complaints are not VALID as abuse allegations. She may be a bad parent, but being a bad parent is not the same as being a child abuser."

When I read theleveller's initial post, I certainly see cause for concern. I see ambiguous statements that might represent valid complaints or might not. What I don't see (and please remember that I didn't see the show itself but only theleveller's post) is a clear statement of a valid allegation of child abuse. What (specifically)was the information that led to the conclusion that these children are being abused?

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 11:21 AM

Arran - As you are in Australia, was it Christian charity that drove earlier settlers to take the native children from their parents? I've always been left with the impression that they really thought they were doing the right thing at the time. I wonder how they came to that?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM

I'm sorry for writng what I wrote about Australia and America,well some of the things not all and the things I wrote about Australia is really Western Australia because I don't really know if they do that in the rest of the country. so I'm sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 09:48 AM

Sorry GS
Unless the church (not individual priests in this case, but the hierarchy of the church (right up to 'God's representative on earth) take responsibility for the atrocities which have taken place, the church can have no credibility.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 07:49 AM

as a Christian I didn't watch it because it is abuse, but's that's American's for you, well some of them anyway, I mean look at their president and you'll see what I man, mind you theyu would probly do the same thing in Australia as well because they send their children out to make money by busking in the streets, now I don't mind it if the child is a teenager but I'm talking about preteens here busking outin the streets in Australia at night time to me that is abuse because a man/woman could come along and sexually abuse them, but then the Austrains well some anyway don't take care their children anyway they just take their children to the beach and then the adults will sit back and the child is off out of sight and then a while later the adults are out their chair (drunk) some of them shouting on their child, now don't tell me that isn't a form of abuse.
But that's Australia for you

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 07:26 AM

As I said, every single report I have ever had from people who went to schools run by nuns was to the broad effect that they learnt thier psychological "disciplinary" skills from Frey Torquemada. Twisted virgins who fucked kids brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:42 AM

It IS good enough to claim that. You cannot tar all priests with the same brush. Any person who abuses children or exploits their 'talents' for profit is NOT a true Christian. Fortunately there are not many of the type mentioned above to blacken the name of Christianity.
Jim it is attitudes like yours which cast judgements over whole groups of people not just the perpetrators and bring shadows over the people who are 'living the life'...'walking the walk'. Christians are human and make mistakes in the way they 'TRY' to live a Christian life as we all fall short of the Glory of God....but blatant abusers and exploiters cannot be considered Christian as they are clearly not living as Christians only claiming to be for their own ends.
Historically, surgeons who operated on patients and lost them through negligence would have their 'work' covered up and many other occupations...care homes where the elderly were abused etc etc....fortunately in our modern era, many of these abuses are coming to light but it does not make all surgeons or all care workers abusers.
All abusers, in whatever walk of life should be dealt with in context. They are personally responsible for their abuse and should be dealt with by the relevant justice system.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 05:29 AM

Well said Jim!

I suppose there was only one real Christian, and look what the bastards did with him.

In the modern world only pseudo-Christianity is useful to those who pull the strings.

The real sentiments of love, brotherhood,humility, as espoused by Jesus the philosopher have become an embarrassment.
The adherents of modern organised religion are all to blame, it has become mostly about "self", in this life.....and the next ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:19 AM

The scandal of sexual and physical abuse of children practiced by the clergy against children placed in their care over many decades has totally broken the grip of the Catholic Church here in Ireland (probably the only good thing to have come out of the whole sordid affair).
Some years ago a woman claiming to have been abused as a child by her priest, attempted to take her case to court. The police applied to obtain the relevant church records to investigate the matter; the bishop not only refused access, but informed the victim that if such a request was made again he would sue her for harassment.
That churchman (O'Connell) is still opposing access to church documents.
Up to relatively recently pedophile churchmen practiced their 'hobbies' freely under the protection of the church hierarchy, who covered up their activities as long as was possible, then moved them on to the next parish to 'continue the good work'.
Child abuse has been a widespread phenomenon in the church in Ireland; so far, I believe we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.
It really isn't good enough to claim that these savages are not 'real Christians'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 04:00 AM

The problem, Don, lies in the sloppy phrasing of your post first criticised. One knee-jerk too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 08 - 12:48 AM

Hey Don Have You Seen The Movie 'JESUS CAMP ???

There are some priceless cameos and frightening debauchery of young souls.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:50 PM

If the shoe fits....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:38 PM

Ron - Your concept of "fair play" is incredibly bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:24 PM

Obviously what the program depicted was child abuse. Problem is that some Mudcatters who can only be described as rabidly anti-religion--just the counterpart to Jerry Falwell, etc--seem to be bound and determined to allege that this is a typical situation for a religious family. It's back to the same old observation--which some people seem never to understand--religion can be abused--just like so many other beliefs--including patriotism, socialism--and secularism.

One of our stalwart Mudcatters--who no doubt sees himself as a secularist-- advocated "stamping out" religion. This person is no more a typical secularist than the family depicted is a typical religious family.

And, as I've said earlier, I'm not in the least religious--just interested in fair play even for some aspects of life which are anathema to some Mudcatters--like religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Alice
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:20 PM

See


Child Abuse

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Alice
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:19 PM

Child abuse in the name of religion... or the name of anything, is a crime. Religion is no excuse to abuse children or adults.
See

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 06:22 PM

Thanks for that, Don. I hope you do see, though, that your initial statement was rather broad.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 06:15 PM

Just one thing Kat. I applaud that, and am doing the selfsame thing with my Grandchildren.

If they are learning the subjects you mention, there is nothing there that falls outside of what a child Would be equipped to learn and understand.

Certainly nothing fitting into the category of what I referred to as abuse.

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 06:09 PM

I won't bother rising to the bait of that bunch of bollocks from Mr. Bridge.


"Sending a child to Sunday School out to qualify, then".

I can only assume that you don't consider this subject worthy of serious thought. There is undoubtedly a world of difference between teaching children about "Baby Jesus", his birth, his life, and his essentially good and humanitarian message, and setting up a child to become a religious bigot, and a homophobe, and to preach those concepts so that his dad can drive around in a Merc 380 wearing designer suits.

One, as you well know is education, the other is unequivocal abuse.

Now I'm out of here and those of you who want can continue to defend the indefensible.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 06:03 PM

What papa Mozart did to his son was similar and for the same profit reasons.

The difference is the talent and the product.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:57 PM

Anytime an adult makes use of the power that he/she has over an innocent child to inculcate ideas and practises which the child is neither old nor mature enough to understand that is abuse.

Have to say I agree with the others. That is a very sweeping statement. One of my greatest pleasures, these days, is being able to teach my grandson about spirituality, books, music, learning, nature, etc. all from my point of view, sanctioned by my daughter and her partner and greatly enjoyed by my grandson. I've done this since he was two days old and he is a remarkable four year old at this point showing no signs of abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:50 PM

"...but Monopoly is so much fun
I'd hate to spoil the game
And I'm sure it wouldn't interest
Anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:48 PM

"Anytime an adult makes use of the power that he/she has over an innocent child to inculcate ideas and practises which the child is neither old nor mature enough to understand that is abuse."



                   Sending a child to Sunday School out to qualify, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:48 PM

Don, that is crap. Virtually the entirety of elementary education involves inculcating children with ideas that they are not mature enough to understand.

The alphabet
Counting
Grammar
Socialised behaviour
History
Washing
Brushing teeth
Table manners
English
French
German
Latin
Greek
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Geography

Good God man you have worked in schools where children were NOT inculcated with such things, and I KNOW you know what the children (and their parents) were like...

The abuse lies in terror. Luckily I never went to a school run by religions, but I had friends who went to convents, and I know at second hand of the calculating terror wielded by nuns.

Of course, it also lies in teaching madness...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:32 PM

As a Christian I have become aware of many kinds of abuse through contacts with missionaries who keep us informed...particularly of children and youth. Things like female circumcision and footbinding..which...yes...still does happen. I guess until 'The World' takes a stand...certain parts of it will sport abuse as part of their everyday living. We all need to do what we can whether by writing to the relevant authorities or getting 'involved' in some other way, even financing people who are prepared to stand for good. Many will discuss it and criticise those who perpetrate it but only the few get involved.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:26 PM

It's not about freedom of thought, Tolerance, nor for that matter freedom of faith.

This is a question of child abuse. Anytime an adult makes use of the power that he/she has over an innocent child to inculcate ideas and practises which the child is neither old nor mature enough to understand that is abuse.

It is an abuse of the trust that the child places in adults, and wholly inappropriate behaviour, whether it is about sex, politics, or religion, and when it is done to generate income for the adult it is doubly reprehensible.

The adults in these cases are not fit to be parents, and are certainly very far removed from anything that I would recognise as a Christian.

I think, assuming that there is a God, that there will be an especially unpleasant corner of hell reserved for such as these.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:43 PM

GS, I think Guest,Tolerance, is being a bit heavy with the irony, at least it seems that way to me.

How about if the title were just "Child Abuse" which is really what it is about? I mean, people will use all kinds of excuses to defend being abusive.

Seemingly not as physically abusive, here is something I was unaware of in Nepal: Click.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:21 PM

Whose freedom of thought are you referring to then Guest Tolerance? Isn't freedom of thought for ALL or just you and whoever agrees with you?. I too did not like what I read in the initial post and believe that these people should be stopped...not because of their beliefs but because of their actions and maltreatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,Tolerance
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM

I'm as tolerant as the next person but this has to stop. We register sex offenders don't we? We limit their movements and make them check in with the authorities when they move to a new town. The same thing can be done with people like these religious nuts.Give them a test. Ask them things like "Do you believe in evolution?" Then we can spot them easier. Maybe it would be best to put a tatoo on their wrist. A cross or a star of David or something like that. Otherwise they might take over and mess up the world for the rest of us. Drastic steps sure. And it won't be cheap. But the time has come - don't you agree? Stand up for freedom of thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 01:09 PM

Well said, Kat, and appreciated.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 12:04 PM

"...but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
                                                   --Matthew 18: 6

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Megan L
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:45 AM

Weel put lass I was going tae say if they folk didny hae the Guid Man tae blame they wid find someone else rather than admit they were abusive people.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:39 AM

Beware of generalisations. Not ALL Baptists are weird, nor are all Christians, the same as not all atheists drag their children back to the swamps to get in touch with their *beginnings.:-) What you saw was appalling and wrong.

Remember,

There is so much bad in the best of us
And, so much good in the worst of us
That it hardly behoves any of us
To talk about the rest of us.

I don't mean these things shouldn't be brought to light, but that we have had a lot of touchy threads, lately, slagging off on those who believe in god and those who do not. I think one more thread is one where we must all be mindful of our fellow Mudcatters and not make sweeping assumptions.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 10:22 AM

Terry was ordained as a Baptist minister at the age of 8. That must be a pretty peculiar sort of Baptist.

Isn't it one of the defining aspects of the Baptists, and the reason they are called Baptists, that they insist that members should not be baptised until they are adults?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: theleveller
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 09:38 AM

Sorry, Georgiansilver, but it's a total cop-out to say they were not true Christians. They believe that they are and the lad, Terry. was paraded in front of literally hundreds of people in Baptist churches across the south. If all these people weren't 'true' Christians, what were they? Also, Terry was ordained as a Baptist minister at the age of 8. Are you saying that Baptists aren't true Christians? I must confess that I don't understand the strange world that is American Protestantism but it seems to condone very odd things that, to me, would appear totally anti-christian. George Bush claims that god talks to him by name but he thinks nothing of executing his own countrymen and waging war on others. Is he not a true Christian?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 09:27 AM

It always amazes me how, in what is here a relatively poor area, the ministers of certain churches dress better than many rock stars. They drive BMWs and have 5 bedroom houses bought from donations by their congregations. I spoke to one of the ministers after noticing that he'd got a new car. He said that his congregation expected him to live in style, but I couldn't help noticing that a lot of his flock were barely scraping by and the rent he owed us (an Anglican church hiring out the church hall) was 6 months in arrears.

I didn't watch the programme in question because I knew I'd have the same feelings as theleveller above... people do the worst things in God's name.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 09:14 AM

The people involved in this this cannot be Christian as a true Christian has to be seen to be 'walking the walk' or 'living the life'. Jesus had a true compassion for children and would have insisted that they be loved, not maltreated.
I also think that true Christian people should and would not 'use' gifts of healing etc for commercial reasons. I will pray, hands on, for anyone for healing for no charge. If God chooses to heal them as a result of my asking then so be it.
Many people who call themselves Christian do so oblivious to the full belief and calling which can be seen in the way they live their life.
All Christians make mistakes but true Christians can be seen to be trying to 'live the life' or 'walk the walk' mentioned before.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 08:45 AM

First you have to know that it's going on. And then someone has to report it. And then someone has to WANT to do something, law or no law.
And many, many people believe that it is a parental right to physically abuse a child (I'm not talking a simple whap on the bottom here, I'm talking beatings).

And they HAVE been prosecuted, unfortunately after the child is found dead or badly hurt. The defense by the parents that they were "driving the devil out" or something like that doesn't wash in the courts, either.

What was in the film is, in my opinion and based upon the description, greed and exploitation. Yes, it's wrong and yes, the child's life is probably twisted.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 07:45 AM

There is a long history of child abuse in religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: theleveller
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 05:26 AM

I agree with you PMB, but the programme I happen to be commenting on was about people who claimed that they were being instructed by god to abuse their children in this way, physically. mentally and emotionally - the children weren't especially clever or in any way special, just what their parents had made them. I can't say I've seen many kids being forced to like folk music - my 17-year old can't stand it but my 8-year old thinks it's brilliant, is desperate to play fiddle like Eliza and has Bellowhead on every waking hour (could probably count as parent abuse).

I think the point I'm trying to make is, why aren't right-minded religious people stopping this from happening? Remember Burke's epithet: 'Evil flourishes when good men do nothing'.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 04:59 AM

I can see the start of another yah- boo row here, so let's point out at the start that 99% of religious people of all faiths are just fine (even if some of us disagree with them), and that forcing children like rhubarb isn't confined to religion. Remember the baby William Hague at one of Thatcher's rallies? The little girls groomed for beauty contests? Kids who go to university at 11 years old? Kids signed up for (soccer) football clubs at the first legal moment? Little Foetus Osmond?

It's normal for people to admire a clever child, and usually they don't see the stress and heartbreak that may be present behind the scenes. And it's normal for parents to want their child to be clever, and to show off that talent- I bet many of you have taken your offspring to folk clubs etc. to show off (and encourage of course) their talents.

IU'm sorry for the kids when this goes too far, but it's really all part of human history, maybe even part of how we got to be what we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious child abuse
From: GUEST,Andy
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 04:56 AM

Leveller,
Probably both. Stupid and brainwashed.

Regards

Andy

Subject: BS: Religious child abuse
From: theleveller
Date: 15 Feb 08 - 03:24 AM

Last night I watched a programme on television called Baby Bible Bashers about child evangelists whose young minds had been twisted into the service of god by fear, greed or a desperate need to win the love of a parent. Samuel had been told at the age of three that he had to become a preacher or he would burn in hell. Aged seven he had become a mascot of his Mississippi community, railing against the evil of drink, abortion and homosexuality – concepts that he hardly understood. His meat-head parents were quick to point out that they did not spare the rod when he rebelled and whilst we we're subjected to his father's god-fearing crap, we hear the cries of the little lad in the background as he is beaten by his mother.

We then saw the missionary zeal of Terry, ordained as a Baptist minister at eight and now making a healthy profit for his father and grandmother as congregations clamour for his sermons and 'miracle healing'. His father talked about 'the organisation that is Terry', selling merchandise with Little Man of God slogans and telling us about his ambition to see Terry preaching to audiences of 30,000. It seems there are millions out there who believe in these mini messiahs. There was more but I was so angry and upset I turned it off.

In the UK the parents would be prosecuted for child abuse, which this undoubtedly was, and the children would be taken into care by social services. I the US we saw whole congregations not only colluding with this abuse, but encouraging it. Can anyone tell me: are these people congenitally stupid or has religious brainwashing destroyed every iota of common sense?