Breaking Their Will: The Sick Biblical Literalism That Leads to Child Abuse and Even Death

reply to post by Lone12

Sir.

Erm.....
I'm a Ma'am....
a woman. A sister, daughter, mother, and contributor to society.

And, also....I am tired of your BS. Does "delusions of grandeur" mean anything to you??

reply to post by Lone12

you are a Plain COWARD, WT.

Pathetic.

What?

How am I a coward, please?
How am I a 'sir'?
HOW ARE YOU entitled to judge, categorize, and label me?

wildtimes
reply to post by Lone12

 

you are a Plain COWARD, WT.

Pathetic.

What?

How am I a coward, please?
How am I a 'sir'?
HOW ARE YOU entitled to judge, categorize, and label me?

Wildtimes, I would not think you are a coward. Sure, you and I might disagree because we have different worldviews, but you have convictions you stand by.

At least Wildtimes is willing to put it out there, that's more than other people who sit back and say nothing and act like there is nothing to worry about.

We can agree to disagree, but that does not make your opinion less valid than mine. Wildtimes, don't let someone like them shut you up, keep on telling us what needs to be fixed if our system is broken. I thank you for that, because if I don't see a problem when there is one, then shame on me.

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I get what you mean. You don't want to praise a God that does love His children, but one that still has to punish His children. I think good parenting includes correction, but then again, how would I know what a good parent does.

PUNISHMENT is not what a merciful 'God' does. DISCIPLINE is quite a different thing.

And, I don't know.....how WOULD you know what a good parent does?

Oh, I don't know, but from seeing how some parents are today, it just makes me a little sad. Maybe our definitions of punishment are a little different. I am not the abusive kind of person, but I think it is just as punishing to a child to let them live 40 years constantly reminding them of being a failure and an embarrassment for something they did at 2.

When I was 2. my parents said I was full of the devil. This continued all my life until I had to tell my mom to shut up and never speak to me again. It took 4 years for me to talk to her again. So I've been on that other side, I know what parents should not do.

I spent a few hours today in the home of a neighbor who was constantly yelling at her grandchildren because she had no patience. I decided that it would be better for me to engage the children in play until I was ready to leave. I now have to consider how I am going to address this woman. She didn't beat them or hit them, she just yelled at them for everything.

Sometimes I would love to punch people in the face. But I have to remind myself that is probably not the best thing to do. But after being that kid who abused, I know how not to treat children. Not all abused kids become abusive and it's really damaging to assume that if someone were abused then they will become abusive, that's heaping onto someone more punishment.

But like I said, for me, punishment would be separated from God. And you know, God never abused me. But I am an adult now, and now I know right from wrong. And it's in the knowing that makes the difference.

reply to post by wildtimes


This type of abuse is not only in Christian homes but in all type of homes. Singling out Christians shows your agenda on spreading half truths and not the full story.

Child abuse is everywhere and it can not be singled out as only a Christian problem.

BTW: Many who proclaim to be Christian are not. You can see this by the fruits they bare.

reply to post by Fraudfinder

This type of abuse is not only in Christian homes but in all type of homes. Singling out Christians shows your agenda on spreading half truths and not the full story.

The ARTICLE cited in the OP was about Evangelical Christian homes. SOME Evangelical Christian homes.

And the reasons those particular parents beat their children - "God's" will, and some barbaric book written by a preacher. Just because you don't want to see that those two ingredients (a barbarian PASTOR, plus a wrathful GOD) create a negative situation BASED ON BELIEFS IN "God", doesn't mean it isn't so. You can get indignant all you like.

There is ALSO child abuse in homes where drugs, poverty, ignorance, "anger issues", etc. are in charge. No one has said otherwise. But in these cases, it wasn't drugs, etc. - it was "God" as portrayed by an influential pastor who wrote a book, and teaches 'techniques' that have resulted in the deaths of at least 3 children whose PARENTS READ THAT BOOK.

Child abuse is everywhere and it can not be singled out as only a Christian problem. That is a no-brainer. Singling out the CAUSES is the trick. A crack whore or a career gang-banger is a far cry from an Evangelical Christian home. They all jeopardize the safety and well-being of children.

reply to post by wildtimes


Child abuse is child abuse. It is that simple.

The agenda here is an attack on Christians, do you not see this or are you blind?

Why SOME and why Christians why not your family, or Muslims or Buddhists?

Child abuse is the issue and not selecting one certain style of family lives or their beliefs.

reply to post by Fraudfinder


Dude. The article was pointing out the harmful effects of THAT FORM of parenting that is being TAUGHT by a pastor.

As I said, pinpointing and eliminating the REASONS for poor/abusive parenting is the idea. If we had a "drugs" forum, I could post there about what druggies do to their children. I have posted MANY threads about child abuse in its various forms (including fundamentalist Islam, as well as simple stupidity and crap parenting that is learned in the family system.)

It is my opinion that people need to be TAUGHT how to parent. I spent years of my life doing just that, teaching people about good parenting (and also working with/helping kids whose parents were NOT good at it).

Is there a reason you are being so defensive and argumentative?

wildtimes
reply to post by Fraudfinder

 

Dude. The article was pointing out the harmful effects of THAT FORM of parenting that is being TAUGHT by a pastor.

As I said, pinpointing and eliminating the REASONS for poor/abusive parenting is the idea. If we had a "drugs" forum, I could post there about what druggies do to their children. I have posted MANY threads about child abuse in its various forms (including fundamentalist Islam, as well as simple stupidity and crap parenting that is learned in the family system.)

It is my opinion that people need to be TAUGHT how to parent. I spent years of my life doing just that, teaching people about good parenting (and also working with/helping kids whose parents were NOT good at it).

Is there a reason you are being so defensive and argumentative?

Apparently you do not get my point .......do you?

If your point was pointing out harmful effects of child abuse why bring in religion. I know why ........ so you can start a thread full of debate and arguments.

You could have easily left out the religion part of the thread couldn't you? But you didn't because you have an agenda otherwise why bring religion into this matter?

I too am a parent, a grandfather, a Godfather, and have witnessed child abuse and I have properly reported it to the authorities.....not to the church.

Your opinion does not make you right.

WarminIndy
I never perceived God as vengeful or wrathful. I have always thought of Him as a loving father.

I used to think that. Now I wonder a lot. It's more like 'Lord of the Flies' down here on Earth than anything else. The kids are in charge and daddy is not engaging. We have no adult supervision.

reply to post by Fraudfinder

If your point was pointing out harmful effects of child abuse why bring in religion.

Did you READ the article cited in the OP? It was about the harmful effects of CHILD ABUSE that is being practiced by people who are followers of a RELIGIOUS PASTOR. Specifically. *eyeroll*

No one has said that ONLY Evangelical Christians beat their kids. And no one has said that ALL Evangelical Christians beat their kids. MY POINT -- and my profession -- was about teaching GOOD PARENTING. If this particular pastor is teaching parents to beat their babies, he has NO BUSINESS being a pastor, and he is victimizing children in the name of "God".

Other causes for child abuse would be dealt with in other forums, for example Social Issues and Civil Unrest.

Fraudfinder
This type of abuse is not only in Christian homes but in all type of homes.

Sure. But this thread is about the abuse in the extreme fundamentalist Christian homes. So that's what we are discussing. I could find tons of info on abuse in Amish homes and Muslim homes ... based on religion ... but this thread isn't about those. Feel free to start a thread on those issues if you like. It's all welcome.


That being said, some abuse is obvious ... like whipping children for minor 'infractions' of the 'holy book'. Other abuse is covert ... the psychological abuse toward children for their minor 'infractions'.

When we lived in Alabama, one of the many fundamentalist churches in town had a school. It would call the parents in to spank the children if they misbehaved or if they didn't do their school work. These are kids in middle school (WAY too old for spanking) getting spanked by adults in front of school administration (wanna talk about psycho-sexual imagery!) . That's pretty sick.

FlyersFan

WarminIndy
I never perceived God as vengeful or wrathful. I have always thought of Him as a loving father.

I used to think that. Now I wonder a lot. It's more like 'Lord of the Flies' down here on Earth than anything else. The kids are in charge and daddy is not engaging. We have no adult supervision.

Let's discuss the largest governing body for human rights, the Universal Declaration of the Right of the Child

The United Nations has determined this....

WHEREAS the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

The United Nations recognize that children have the right to religion, it is a basic human right. You are the one accusing the world as being like Lord of the Flie but you aren't willing to respect the basic human rights of someone else and their children as designed, drafted, voted upon and accepted by the United Nations.

Now, therefore, Proclaims THIS DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own good and for the good of society the rights and freedoms herein set forth, and calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals, and upon voluntary organizations, local authorities and national Governments to recognize these rights and strive for their observance by legislative and other measures progressively taken in accordance with the following principles:

1:The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.

2: The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

These are the first two sections. This declaration was built upon the prior Geneva Convention of 1924

WHEREAS the need for such special safeguards has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924, and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the statutes of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children, WHEREAS mankind owes to the child the best it has to give,

By just demanding that children should not have any religious instruction, you are violating the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child. How does that make you feel? Are you all for removing religion from homes now? And how are you going to go about it? You have already violated the Geneva Convention, do you care to keep it up? You do realize now that every Christian with children has legal standing.

You say it is like Lord of the Flies, and yet you are the one dancing around the fire with tribal markings. Because people refused to keep the commandments of God, the United Nations stepped in and said it is now law to respect religion.

You might disagree with my religion, but you have no legal standing to demand my religion be removed from children. That means you are violating the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention on rights of children, as the United Nations and the Geneva Convention both recognize religion as a basic human right.

So, let's discuss this international law.

reply to post by WarminIndy


WOW! Did you ever twist that around!

The Universal Declaration of the Right of the Child protects children< I hope>, from their religious parents and family members performing things like "genital mutilation" on little girls, or from marrying them off at age 9 or 12 to their 50 year old uncle, to be raped. The UN, in no way supports the abuse of children at the hands of their parents religious beliefs.

And, children don't have a religion. They have the indoctrination of their parents or cultures religion. No body has a religion until they are capable of choosing their religion.

WarminIndy
By just demanding that children should not have any religious instruction,

Hey genius .. I never said that. Learn how to read.

You say it is like Lord of the Flies, and yet you are the one dancing around the fire with tribal markings.

Oh brother. Get a grip. It IS like Lord of the Flies here. The kiddies are out of control
and the daddy is no where to be found. It's a very good comparison.

You might disagree with my religion, but you have no legal standing to demand my religion be removed from children.

And where exactly did I 'demand religion be removed from children'??? NO WHERE.

I stated exactly what one of my experiences with Christian fundamentalists and kids was. It was the truth. They were demanding parents spank middle school kids (ages 11-13) which is WAY TOO OLD to be spanking. And they were spanking in front of other adults. This is classic psycho-sexual imagery as well as a violation of basic psychological principles of child care. (and yes, my degree is in Psychology).

As for the rest of your post ... it was a bizarre twisted blah blah blah mess of accusations against me for things I've not said or done. YOU ASSUME TOO MUCH.

reply to post by windword


Are you redefining what a fundamental human right is? Do you disagree with the Geneva Convention?

This is important to understand, because it appears that you do not realize that in both of these conventions, it is about children. If the Geneva Convention recognizes the fundamental HUMAN right of religion, are you choosing to deny the humanity of children? Are they not human now?

What the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration goes on to say, which I know that you did not read the link, then you would have seen that within this declaration is the provisions for allowing children to live a full, happy life. But as anything, when a Christian responds, you only take half of what we say because it goes against what you want to hear.

I am opposed to female genital mutilation and marrying off young girls, because those are destructive. While I might disagree with Islam, I have no right to say anyone should not be Muslim. And you need to also understand that many Muslims want Sharia law to replace the Geneva Convention.

I am sorry, but the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration guarantees CHILDREN the basic human right of religion, not freedom from religion. The third clause dictates that all children should have a name and a nationality. But I don't think you read it, so I had to tell you.

If the WORDING in the Declaration says CHILDREN, then I am going to assume the United Nations means CHILDREN.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Some religious practices are inhumane to children, such as female genital mutilation, or child brides, both religiously backed.

These types of religious practices, as well as any and all child abuse based on religious doctrines need to be banned, and their parents punished.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I am sorry, but the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration guarantees CHILDREN the basic human right of religion, not freedom from religion.

How can one possible have freedom of religion without freedom from religion? A child has the right to be free from their parents religions' abuses, and free to choose not to be associated with that religion as soon as they're old enough.



Did this little girl have the right to do what she did to free herself from her parents' religious ideas?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Now, therefore, Proclaims THIS DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own good and for the good of society the rights and freedoms herein set forth, and calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals, and upon voluntary organizations, local authorities and national Governments to recognize these rights and strive for their observance by legislative and other measures progressively taken in accordance with the following principles:

See that yellow bit? It calls for the child to HAVE A HAPPY CHILDHOOD. Being beaten by a Bible-thumping, cane-wielding, overpowering ADULT is not included in a Happy Childhood.

1:The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.

Same as EEO - the rights are there, WITHOUT REGARD to all those other things. Meaning, a child may be in a religious household (or poor, or brown/black/white, English-speaking or not, Dems or Repubs as parents, etc) and is STILL ENTITLED to a happy, safe childhood. The child's rights OVERRIDE the rights of the parents or other adults to wreck a childhood. PERIOD.

2: The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

BY LAW, the best interests of the CHILD come FIRST - which does NOT include being beaten, shamed, psychologically and emotionally damaged - those are not Healthy and Normal things.

You found one word and took it out of context. (A familiar thing on this forum).

Read the SPIRIT of the law/rights - and it is dazzlingly obvious that being beaten, shamed, starved, etc. is CONTRARY to the Geneva Convention.

You are twisting it, just as windword pointed out.

reply to post by FlyersFan


It's never about what anyone directly says, it's what they say indirectly.

You are the one pointing out the "errors" of religious parents and through your loud objections against those "errors" then compare this world to Lord of the Flies (which is Beelzebub), but then you don't mention the bullies who are using forums such as this to use certain groups as punching bags.

Come on, you know you do it, you seek out Christian threads or threads against Christians just so you can go in and make kidney punches then you step back and say "I didn't say that!". You know you come to these threads not really looking for meaningful dialogue.

It was you who bandied "they are guilty of indoctrination" and "they are guilty of pseudo-sexual imagery". Are we expected to sit back and take the kidney punches? When a Christian speaks back, suddenly it becomes "you twisted my words" or "you don't have the right to disagree with me".

You didn't have to directly say it, the meaning in your words have told us very plainly what it is that you want to say. You have used my religion and my faith as a punching bag. Am I just supposed to take it? If I am expected to take it, then that makes you which one, a Ralph or a Piggy?

These are questions designed to engage you in dialogue, but not meant as an insult, as I am not calling you Ralph or Piggy.

But in light of the Universal Declaration, do you have problems with children being guaranteed the fundamental human right of religion?