Janet Heimlich's Blog, page 4

A New Venture: Child-Friendly Faith

As most of you know, I have devoted much of the last four years to researching and writing about religious child maltreatment. I intend to continue to learn all I can about his form of abuse and neglect.

However, it's time to begin a new path.

A few months back, I had the pleasure of getting to know a sociologist by the name of Christine Woodman. She and I have decided to begin a non-profit organization called "Child-Friendly Faith," which will educate the public about religion's effects on children.

What sets Child-Friendly Faith apart from other organizations that speak to religion and children? 1) We don't promote or denigrate any religion, place of worship, or faith group. 2) We acknowledge that religion has the ability to both help and harm children. The ultimate goal of CFF is to ensure that a religious or spiritual upbringing is a healthy experience for every child.

To kick things off, Christine and I have begun a closed Facebook group. We hope you will join! Secondly, Huffington Post contributor Valerie Tarico has written an article about Child-Friendly Faith, which appears on her excellent blog, Awaypoint. You can read the article by going here.

Thank you for your support. Christine and I look forward to hearing from you as we all do what we can to move the conversation forward.

Best to you,

Janet

Imam: Shafia murders were “unbelievable.” Really?

Last week in Montreal, three Muslims from Afghanistan were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for killing four family members, including three teenage girls. According to prosecutors, Hamed Shafia killed his three sisters—Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13—upon orders by his father, Mohammad. Hamed’s mother, Tooba Yahya, was also convicted for playing a part. Mohammad’s wife from a polygamous marriage was the fourth victim. The family had moved to Canada in 2007—two years before the crimes were committed—under a program for affluent immigrants.

Mohammed and Hamed Shafia and Tooba Mohammed Yahya

Evidence showed that the victims were condemned to die because they “dishonored” the family with their life choices: Zainab married a man her parents disapproved of. Sahar wore revealing clothes and had secret boyfriends. And the youngest victim, Geeti, did badly in school and called social workers to help with family conflicts. It is unclear just how the victims died; evidence indicates that, after they were killed, the crimes were made to look like an auto accident. The victims’ bodies were found in a Nissan Sentra submerged in a canal on June 30, 2009.

The New York Times reports: “Police wiretaps recorded Mr. Shafia repeatedly expressing the view, often in graphic, vulgar language, that the girls had disgraced his family by dating and by wearing revealing clothing. Other evidence showed that at least one of the dead girls was so frightened of her father that she sought help from the police to escape the household and be placed in foster care with her sisters, without success.”

Naturally, many Muslims find the killings horrific and have openly condemned the violent acts. They insist that honor killing is not part of Islam, pointing out that the practice is not discussed in the Qur’an. One of those Muslims is Ali Falih Altaie, the imam at the Shafias’ mosque. In a media interview, Altaie denounced the murders as “unforgivable,” “unacceptable by any religion,” and “unbelievable.” Said Altaie, “Only people who have lost their brain do that.”

But as shocking as the crimes were, why did Altaie find them to be “unbelievable”? This case is not the first honor killing to take place in Canada or the United States. In fact, honor killings are on the rise in Canada, often perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. Just last summer, a Pakistani father and brother of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez of Ontario were sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to murdering Aqsa, when she would not wear a hijab covering.

[image error]

Amina and Sarah Said

There have also been numerous honor killings in the United States. The first known case took place in 1989 in St. Louis, Missouri, in which a Palestinian father and his wife stabbed their 16-year-old daughter more than a dozen times after learning that she had taken a part-time job and was dating an African American boy. In 2008, near Dallas, Yaser Abdel Said allegedly shot to death his two daughters, Sarah, 17, and Amina, 18, in what many conclude was an honor killing. According to family members and friends, Said was incensed that Sarah and Amina were acting western and dating non-muslim boys. He fled the scene and has not been seen since.

Despite the fact that most Muslims deplore honor killings, some Muslims do, indeed, believe that their faith requires them to kill in the name of family honor. While the Qur’an does not speak of honor killing, it clearly places men in a superior position to women, even giving husbands the right to beat their wives. Muslims often set strict rules about female purity.

We should never assume that all Muslims believe in honor killing, even those who come from parts of the world where the practice goes on. That said, any imam who is completely psychologically unprepared when such atrocities are committed by his congregants must be living in deep denial.

In searching for a way the murders could have been prevented, Altaie said, “Maybe if they [Zainab Shafia and her boyfriend] were married, this might not have happened.” He also expressed concern that the very public trial will lead many to believe that honor killings are common among Muslims.

Perhaps imams like Altaie should consider another way to prevent this violence: Talk about it. Talk to child protective services, who have traditionally not dealt with this problem. Talk to police, who continue to simply, and mistakenly, categorize these crimes as domestic violence cases. Talk to the media. And, most importantly, talk to the Muslim community. Explain that honor killing is not part of Islam but that it still happens. And urge Muslims to report all suspected cases of domestic violence and child abuse.

According to Altaie, “His [Mohammed Shafia’s] brain was back there in the Middle East or somewhere else he came from. Usually, in this society we don’t have people thinking things like that.”

Rona Amir Mohammad and Zainab, Sahar, and Geeti Shafia

That’s right, usually. So let’s not turn a blind eye to the problem of honor killing. If we spend less time defending a faith and more time educating the public about the potential dangers, we have a chance to stop the practice. It’s the least we can do to honor the victims.

Imam: Shafia murders were "unbelievable." Really?

Last week in Montreal, three Muslims from Afghanistan were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for killing four family members, including three teenage girls. According to prosecutors, Hamed Shafia killed his three sisters—Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13—upon orders by his father, Mohammad. Hamed's mother, Tooba Yahya, was also convicted for playing a part. Mohammad's wife from a polygamous marriage was the fourth victim. The family had moved to Canada in 2007—two years before the crimes were committed—under a program for affluent immigrants.

Mohammed and Hamed Shafia and Tooba Mohammed Yahya

Evidence showed that the victims were condemned to die because they "dishonored" the family with their life choices: Zainab married a man her parents disapproved of. Sahar wore revealing clothes and had secret boyfriends. And the youngest victim, Geeti, did badly in school and called social workers to help with family conflicts. It is unclear just how the victims died; evidence indicates that, after they were killed, the crimes were made to look like an auto accident. The victims' bodies were found in a Nissan Sentra submerged in a canal on June 30, 2009.

The New York Times reports: "Police wiretaps recorded Mr. Shafia repeatedly expressing the view, often in graphic, vulgar language, that the girls had disgraced his family by dating and by wearing revealing clothing. Other evidence showed that at least one of the dead girls was so frightened of her father that she sought help from the police to escape the household and be placed in foster care with her sisters, without success."

Naturally, many Muslims find the killings horrific and have openly condemned the violent acts. They insist that honor killing is not part of Islam, pointing out that the practice is not discussed in the Qur'an. One of those Muslims is Ali Falih Altaie, the imam at the Shafias' mosque. In a media interview, Altaie denounced the murders as "unforgivable," "unacceptable by any religion," and "unbelievable." Said Altaie, "Only people who have lost their brain do that."

But as shocking as the crimes were, why did Altaie find them to be "unbelievable"? This case is not the first honor killing to take place in Canada or the United States. In fact, honor killings are on the rise in Canada, often perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. Just last summer, a Pakistani father and brother of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez of Ontario were sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to murdering Aqsa, when she would not wear a hijab covering.

[image error]

Amina and Sarah Said

There have also been numerous honor killings in the United States. The first known case took place in 1989 in St. Louis, Missouri, in which a Palestinian father and his wife stabbed their 16-year-old daughter more than a dozen times after learning that she had taken a part-time job and was dating an African American boy. In 2008, near Dallas, Yaser Abdel Said allegedly shot to death his two daughters, Sarah, 17, and Amina, 18, in what many conclude was an honor killing. According to family members and friends, Said was incensed that Sarah and Amina were acting western and dating non-muslim boys. He fled the scene and has not been seen since.

Despite the fact that most Muslims deplore honor killings, some Muslims do, indeed, believe that their faith requires them to kill in the name of family honor. What's more Muslims often set strict rules about female purity. Given this and the fact that many Muslim immigrants come from parts of the world where honor killing is practiced, it seems confounding that an imam would be psychologically unprepared when such atrocities are committed by his congregants.

In searching for a way the murders could have been prevented, Altaie said, "Maybe if they [Zainab Shafia and her boyfriend] were married, this might not have happened." He also expressed concern that the very public trial will lead many to believe that honor killings are common among Muslims.

Perhaps imams like Altaie should consider another way to prevent this violence: Talk about it. Talk to child protective services, who have traditionally not dealt with this problem. Talk to police, who continue to simply, and mistakenly, categorize these crimes as domestic violence cases. Talk to the media. And, most importantly, talk to the Muslim community. Explain that honor killing is not part of Islam but that it still happens. And urge Muslims to report all suspected cases of domestic violence and child abuse.

According to Altaie, "His [Mohammed Shafia's] brain was back there in the Middle East or somewhere else he came from. Usually, in this society we don't have people thinking things like that."

Rona Amir Mohammad and Zainab, Sahar, and Geeti Shafia

That's right, usually. So let's not turn a blind eye to the problem of honor killing. If we spend less time defending a faith and more time educating the public about the potential dangers, we have a chance to stop the practice. It's the least we can do to honor the victims.

A Dangerous Evangelist Comes to America

I don't care to criticize others for their religious beliefs. It's not my business whether one worships Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, the pope, Mohammad, or Warren Jeffs. But when I see religious leaders spouting beliefs that directly, or indirectly, harm children, I speak up. Whether it is indicted Bishop Robert Finn or pro-spanking fundamentalist Christian preacher Michael Pearl, we must examine what role authority figures play in failing to protect children from abuse or, worse, inciting violence against children.

I just found out that Helen Ukpabio, a powerful fundamentalist Christian preacher from Nigeria, will soon be visiting Houston, Texas. I learned about this after reading a Huffington Post article written by Michael Mungai, a student at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia and founder of Harambee Youth Kenya, a Nairobi organization that offers shelter to homeless boys.

Ukpabio plans to perform a 12-day "marathon deliverance," beginning on March 14th, where she promises to relieve people of such problems as nightmares, "witchcraft attacks," being possessed by a "mermaid spirit," and poverty. Mungai says Americans should be troubled by the arrival of Ukpabio whom he calls a "notorious child-witch hunter." Mungai goes on to say,

Ukpabio alleges that Satan constantly manifests himself in the bodies of children through demonic possession, turning them into witches and wizards. Condemned as witches, these children are splashed with acid, buried alive, immersed in fire or expelled from their communities.

Richard Wilson, writing for New.humanist.org.uk, points out that Africans have long believed in the power of evil spirits, but, as of late, that belief has been ramped up due to the "explosive rise of Pentecostal and Revivalist churches" which push the idea during services.

"The belief in witchcraft has thus become intertwined with Christianity," writes Wilson.

Ukpabio is one of the most influential preachers behind the movement. Warning congregants about witchcraft is a mainstay of her sermons, as well as the subject of her book, Unveiling the Mysteries of Witchcraft, in which she tells readers how to identify a child witch.

"If a child under the age of two screams in the night, cries and is always feverish with deteriorating health, he or she is a servant of Satan," Ukpabio writes.

The most damaging of Ukpabio's propaganda, however, seems to be her 1999 dramatic film, End of the Wicked, in which child actors are seen being initiated in eerie rituals in which they are turned into drone-like witches and instructed to "blow up all electronic things in your home! Break plates, glasses, and then cause fever and failure to all other children in your home."

The film is comical to watch—I liken it to the old and zany "Our Gang" films—but, as Wilson points out, many Nigerian children are, indeed, blamed for bad things that take place, while being accused of being tools of Satan. Once the accusations fly, these children are often ostracized or made to undergo violent, and sometimes fatal, exorcisms.

And such abuses extend beyond Africa's borders. London has seen a rash of crimes involving child victims who had been accused of witchcraft and tortured. Currently, a couple is on trial in London for the brutal killing of a 15-year-old boy named Kristy Bamu. Both perpetrators were born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It is no wonder that some partly blame these abuses on Ukpabio. End of the Wicked has been widely disseminated, and her Liberty Gospel Church has grown tremendously since she founded it in 1992. Headquartered in Calabar in Southern Nigeria, Liberty Gospel now has branches in other parts of Nigeria and overseas. A poster advertising Ukpabio's Houston visit says she will be performing at a Liberty Gospel church.

According to Mungai, "She [Ukpabio] continues to enrich herself, through her books and remittances from exorcisms. In this, she joins the growing list of televangelists who are fleecing poor Africans all over the continent, promising 'miracles' for a fee."

There is a determined movement to protect children from this kind of abuse and oppose Ukpabio's teachings. The organization Stepping Stones Nigeria and the 2008 a documentary Saving Africa's Witch Children have brought international attention to the issue of child witchcraft and Ukpabio's fear mongering.

The Nigerian state of Akwa Ibom has passed a child rights law that prohibits people from accusing children of being witches. However, critics point out that government officials, themselves, believe in witchcraft and that children can be guilty of practicing it.

Leo Igwe

One Nigerian who has worked tirelessly to protect children from such abuse is Leo Igwe, a representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. In an interview with Wilson, Igwe explains how he became frustrated when he took three "confessed child-witches" to the Ministry of Women's Affairs and was told by the director that the children would "contaminate" other children being kept at a childcare facility.

"I was outraged," Igwe said. "Here is a ministry that tells the world, 'We are taking care of these children.' But the director did not want to accept these children because, in the course of being interviewed, they admitted that they were witches."

Igwe believes that Akwa Ibom passed its child rights legislation largely due to international pressure and, he states, no one has been prosecuted or convicted for accusing children of witchcraft to date. Politicians are afraid that "if they dabble into it the witches will come after them," says Igwe.

Helen Ukpabio

This won't be Ukpabio's first trip to the United States. She spoke in Houston in May of 2010. As reported by the New York Times, Ukpabio was "emphatic that children can be possessed, and that with her God-given 'powers of discernment,' she can spot such a child." The Times reported that Ukpabio accused her critics of lying and that legislation criminalizing witch accusations infringes on her freedom of religion.

One can understand why Michael Mungai, in particular, wants to alert people to Ukpabio's visit. He is a victim of abuse himself, having lived on the streets as a boy. He has worked with street children, many of whom came from abusive backgrounds. "It therefore disturbs me to see Ukpabio, hiding behind the immunity of religion, inflicting even worse torture on Nigerian children," Mungai writes.

I join in Mungai's appeal to Americans "to ensure that Ukpabio, with her hateful campaign against defenseless children, knows that she is not welcome in their country. She should be met with hostility similar to the protests against the Pope's visit to the United Kingdom. While we should all respect the freedom of everyone to practice their religion, this respect should stop where it starts harming those around them."

"Protesting against Ukpabio's visit to America would be a step towards the right direction in giving a voice to her unfortunate little victims," says Mungai.

CALLS TO ACTION:

Visit this Facebook page which protests Ukpabio's visit.

Sign this petition demanding that President Obama deny Ukpabio entrance to the U.S.

Donate to Stepping Stones Nigeria, an advocacy group that helps to protect children accused of witchcraft.

A Dangerous Evangelist Comes to Texas

I don't care to criticize others for their religious beliefs. It's not my business whether one worships Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, the pope, Mohammad, or Warren Jeffs. But when I see religious leaders spouting beliefs that directly, or indirectly, harm children, I speak up. Whether it be indicted Bishop Robert Finn or pro-spanking fundamentalist Christian preacher Michael Pearl, those in authority who fail to protect children from abuse—or worse, incite violence against children—must be exposed.

Such is the case with another powerful, religious leader, Helen Ukpabio, a Nigerian evangelist who will soon be visiting Texas. I found out about the trip after reading a Huffington Post article written by Michael Mungia, a student at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia and founder of Harambee Youth Kenya, a Nairobi organization that offers shelter to homeless boys. Ukpabio plans to perform a 12-day "marathon deliverance," beginning on March 14th in Houston. Mungai states that Americans should be troubled by the fact that Ukpabio is a "notorious child-witch hunter." He goes on to say,

Ukpabio alleges that Satan constantly manifests himself in the bodies of children through demonic possession, turning them into witches and wizards. Condemned as witches, these children are splashed with acid, buried alive, immersed in fire or expelled from their communities.

Richard Wilson, writing for New.humanist.org.uk, points out that Nigerians have long believed in the power of evil spirits, but, as of late, that belief has been ramped up due to the "explosive rise of Pentecostal and Revivalist churches" which push the idea during services.

"The belief in witchcraft has thus become intertwined with Christianity," writes Wilson.

Ukpabio is one of the most influential preachers behind the movement. Warning congregants about witchcraft is a mainstay of her sermons, as well as the subject of her book, Unveiling the Mysteries of Witchcraft, in which she tells readers how to identify a child witch.

"If a child under the age of two screams in the night, cries and is always feverish with deteriorating health, he or she is a servant of Satan," Ukpabio writes.

The most damaging material, however, seems to be Ukpabio's 1999 dramatic film, End of the Wicked, in which child actors are seen being initiated in eerie rituals in which they are turned into drone-like witches and instructed to "blow up all electronic things in your home! Break plates, glasses, and then cause fever and failure to all other children in your home."

The film is comical to watch, a Nigerian version of the old "Our Gang" films. But, as Wilson points out, many Nigerian children are blamed for bad things that take place due to beliefs in child witchcraft. As a result, the accused are often ostracized or cast out of their villages. They also undergo violent, and sometimes fatal, exorcisms.

It is no wonder that some partly blame these abuses on Ukpabio. Her film has been widely disseminated, and her Liberty Gospel church has grown tremendously since she founded it in 1992. Headquartered in Calabar in Southern Nigeria, Liberty Gospel now has branches in other parts of Nigeria and overseas. In fact, when Ukpabio comes to Houston, she will be speaking at a Liberty Gospel church.

According to Mungai, "She [Ukpabio] continues to enrich herself, through her books and remittances from exorcisms. In this, she joins the growing list of televangelists who are fleecing poor Africans all over the continent, promising 'miracles' for a fee."

There is a determined movement to protect children from this kind of abuse and oppose Ukpabio's teachings. The organization Stepping Stones Nigeria and the 2008 a documentary Saving Africa's Witch Children have brought international attention to the issue of child witchcraft and Ukpabio's fear mongering.

The Nigerian state of Akwa Ibom has passed a child rights law that prohibits people from accusing children of being witches. However, critics point out that government officials, themselves, believe in witchcraft and that children can be guilty of practicing it.

Leo Igwe

One Nigerian who has worked tirelessly to protect children from such abuse is Leo Igwe, a representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. In his interview with Wilson, Igwe explains how he became frustrated when he took three "confessed child-witches" to the Ministry of Women's Affairs and was told by the director that the children would "contaminate" other children being kept at a childcare facility.

"I was outraged," Igwe told Wilson. "Here is a ministry that tells the world, 'We are taking care of these children.' But the director did not want to accept these children because, in the course of being interviewed, they admitted that they were witches."

Igwe believes that Akwa Ibom passed its child rights legislation largely due to international pressure and, he states, no one has been prosecuted or convicted to date. Politicians are afraid that "if they dabble into it the witches will come after them," says Igwe.

Helen Ukpabio

This won't be Ukpabio's first trip to the United States. She spoke in Houston in May of 2010. As reported by the New York Times, Ukpabio was "emphatic that children can be possessed, and that with her God-given 'powers of discernment,' she can spot such a child." The Times reported that Ukpabio accused her critics of lying and that legislation criminalizing witch accusations infringes on her freedom of religion.

One can understand why Michael Mungai, in particular, wants to alert people to Ukpabio's visit. He is a victim of abuse himself, having lived on the streets as a boy. He has worked with street children, many of whom came from abusive backgrounds. "It therefore disturbs me to see Ukpabio, hiding behind the immunity of religion, inflicting even worse torture on Nigerian children," Mungai writes.

I join in Mungai's appeal to Texans, to Americans, "to ensure that Ukpabio, with her hateful campaign against defenseless children, knows that she is not welcome in their country. She should be met with hostility similar to the protests against the Pope's visit to the United Kingdom. While we should all respect the freedom of everyone to practice their religion, this respect should stop where it starts harming those around them."

Mungai urges, "Protesting against Ukpabio's visit to America would be a step towards the right direction in giving a voice to her unfortunate little victims."

Are you raising your child in a religious authoritarian culture?

As I stress in my book, Breaking Their Will, children are at most risk for being religiously abused or neglected when they are raised in religious authoritarian cultures. These cultures are homes and communities in which members strongly identify themselves by their faith. And, as in any authoritarian community, people care more about meeting the needs of the overall culture than the needs of individuals.

It's important that people of faith distinguish between religious authoritarian environments versus those that are progressive and more tolerant. The former can often be harmful to children (as well as adults), because they negatively influence how parents raise their kids. In these groups, mothers and fathers usually adopt authoritarian, one-size-fits-all approach to childrearing; sometimes parents justify abuse or neglect with doctrine or scripture.

There are a number of ways to identify a religious authoritarian community. Breaking Their Will offers three "perfect storm" characteristics, as well as a list of questions parents can ask themselves to determine whether they are raising their kids in such a culture. In addition, members tend to dogmatically cling to certain extreme beliefs. Below I list ten of those beliefs, as well as questions for parents to ponder.

If you are a mother or father whose church or community maintains some or all of these beliefs, I urge you to look elsewhere to worship. While you might benefit from being part of a tightly structured community, you are putting your children at risk for emotional and physical abuse or neglect.

TEN BELIEFS HELD BY RELIGIOUS AUTHORITARIAN CULTURES

#1: Children must honor you unconditionally.

The Ten Commandments is clear that your sons and daughters should honor you. Colossians 3:20 goes a step further in requiring that your offspring honor you "in all things". Do you take that to mean that you have the right to expect your children to always honor you? Are there ever times that you do not deserve that honor? What about the idea of parents honoring their children, a phrase that is absent from the Bible?

#2: The Bible requires that you spank your kids.

The book of Proverbs includes numerous passages stating that parents should use the "rod" to discipline and "chastise" children. Proverbs also says that spanking is a form of love and even helps bring children eternal salvation (23:14). Do you find that these passages justify the physical punishment of children? What if that "chastisement" leaves marks on the skin? What if this treatment leaves your child terrified or confused about what parental love means? I have yet to locate a study that shows that spanking improves a child's well-being. Do you believe it does?

#3: Females must always be "pure".

Who gains from girls and women being instructed to cover their heads, not lead religious services, suppress their sexuality, and devote their lives to being wives and mothers? So many girls are raised, as one female reader wrote, "to cover [themselves] to protect them from being abused or lusted over by men." It is a way of "honoring and protecting women, not controlling them," she stated. Is that your experience, that all men are to be feared and that this belief about female purity does not lead to the control of women? Even more importantly, can you, mothers, raised to submit to your husbands and other men, adequately protect your children from abuse by men?

#4: Children are sinful.

Here I am speaking only to Christians who are not part of the Mormon church. Do you believe that children are born sinful and that sin jeopardizes your children's chances of reaching eternal salvation? If so, what are you willing to do to "cleanse" them of this sin? Terrify them about eternal damnation? Beat them, as Proverbs commands? Do you feel that you are being a bad parent if you don't?

#5: Abuse victims should forgive their perpetrators.

In Matthew 18:21–22, Jesus commands individuals to forgive their sinners mot just once or twice but  "seventy times seven." Many believe forgiveness brings peace of mind. Do you believe that children who say they have been abused should forgive their abusers? What about getting the victim counseling? What about turning the abuser in to civil authorities. Just whom does making children forgive their abusers serve?

#6: Religious leaders can do no wrong.

Do you believe that your priest, pastor, rabbi, or imam is closer to God than you are? If so, does that mean that he could never harm your child? If your child were to tell you that your religious leader had sexually abused him or her, would you believe your child? Would you report the accused abuser?

#7: The faithful must avoid scandal at all costs.

How important is it to protect the image of your religious leaders, your place of worship, your religion? Do you believe that non-believers want to persecute you? What ends would you go to to keep problems secret from non-believers, such as child abuse. How willing are you to tell police or child protective services if you suspect that a child in your community is being abused?

#8: Marriage/sex between a man and a virgin/underage girl is a form of piety.

The  Talmud (Sanhedrin 69a) says, "A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition." The Mormon text, the Doctrine and Covenants (132:61–62) states that men who marry many virgins are not adulterers "for they belong to him." The Bible includes numerous stories of men being promised, or having sex with, virgins. What are your rules about how old a girl should be before she marries or has sex?

#9: God wants you to have many children.

The idea that couples should "be fruitful and multiply" was important in biblical times when the size of a tribe largely determined its chances for survival. Do you feel the dictum to procreate is also important today? Some pious parents have gone so far as to adopt children even after they already have many biological children. Sometimes, these parents can't handle the stress and the children suffer from neglect and abuse.  Is it fair to your children-to-be if you are not ready to handle a large family, psychologically or economically?

#10: Faith healing is superior to medical care.

Jesus supposedly cured people through faith healing. What do you do when your child gets sick? Do you believe that prayer is the only answer? Do you see seeking medical care as a sign that you are not faithful to God? If prayer doesn't work, are you willing to admit it? How much would you let your child suffer before you call a doctor? Do you think Jesus would have condoned the suffering of children due to illness if good doctors had been available in his time?

Twelve Potentially Dangerous Beliefs Held by Religious Authoritarian Cultures

Dear Parents of Religious Authoritarian Cultures,

Since I finished Breaking Their Will, I have been compiling a list of beliefs commonly held by religious authoritarian communities like yours. I thought you find it helpful to see this list neatly laid out before you. Do not mind those who call these beliefs "extremist" or say that they pose a threat to the health, happiness, and safety of children. Only you understand what it means to be faithful and adhere to a set of doctrines that represents the one true divine message.

So let's welcome in the New Year with what apostates might call . . .

The 12 POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS BELIEFS HELD BY RELIGIOUS AUTHORITARIAN CULTURES:

 

PDF #1: Children must honor their parents unconditionally.

The Ten Commandments is clear that your sons and daughters should honor you, but Colossians 3:20 goes a step further, stating that your offspring should honor you "in all things". Therefore, you have the right to expect that honor, even if you don't deserve it.

PDB #2: The Bible requires that parents spank their kids.

The most spot-on parenting guide of the Bible is the book of Proverbs, which stipulates that you should use the "rod" to discipline and "chastise" your kids. In others words, you are obligated to spank your children when you deem them to be disobedient. For instance, when they (yes!) don't honor you in all things. What's more, as the Bible says, spanking is a form of love and even helps make your children heaven-worthy. "You shall beat him with the rod and deliver his soul from hell," so instructs Proverbs 23:14.

PDB #3: Females must always be "pure".

Tell your daughters to keep their legs crossed and their heads covered. They should not talk in church, and they should leave those filthy boys alone! They should also learn to cook, clean, submit to your husbands-to-be, and accept their role as babymaker. Meanwhile, boys are learning to control the lives of girls and women, which is what God wants.

PDB #4: Children are sinful.

Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, you can sit this one out. I'm talking only to Christian authoritarians here, who know full well that children are born with sin coursing through their veins. What's that, a baby crying? Ha! What more proof do you need? (Note: To cleanse children of sin, spank them. See PDB #2.)

PDB #5: Disobedient children will suffer in the afterlife.

Tell your child who broke his sister's toy that he has made God really angry. Sin is just seeping out of him like a sieve! He should also be told the probable consequences: He won't rise up into heaven to join his loved ones; instead, he will be burned in a lake of fire. (Note: Again, this situation can be repaired with a good spanking. See PDB #2.)

PDB #6: Abuse victims should forgive their perpetrators.

If you doubt this, refer to Matthew 18:21–22 in which Jesus commands individuals to forgive their sinners. And not just once or twice but  "seventy times seven". So, see to it that child abuse victims get started. Let's not waste time bringing them to evil therapists when there's so much forgiving that needs doing!

PDB #7: Religious leaders can do no wrong.

Mom and Dad, you must be proud that Rabbi, Pastor, or Imam So-and-So wants to spend one-on-one time with your child. What could go wrong? After all, these folks are close to God. Or at least they say they are, and who are you to question them? And if your child tells you that this divine individual molested him, you must get to the bottom of it. Perhaps consider beating the child to rid him of sin. Or, depending on your denomination, perform an exorcism, since making such an accusation could be a sign that your boy is being controlled by Satan.

PDB #8: The faithful must avoid scandal at all costs.

What could be worse than outsiders talking badly about your faith community? After all, we all know that non-believers—especially those employed by the government—want to persecute you. Obviously, reporting suspected child abuse is out of the question. But, not to fear, your community has its own internal way of "prosecuting" abusers. No one will be held accountable and victims will not get counseling, but at least no one on the outside will find out.

PDB #9: Sex between a man and an underage girl (virgin) is a form of piety.

To be clear, sexual relations between a man and a virginal underage girl is not sexual abuse. It's marriage. Take a look at the Talmud (Sanhedrin 69a): "A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition." Such a marriage is certainly justified if it helps ensure the happy couple a place in heaven. And to repeat, if you do suspect sexual abuse, telling child protective services or law enforcement is a bad idea. (Refer to PDB #8.)

PDB #10: God wants all parents to have many children.

So you don't have a lot of money, and one of you comes unglued when things get a little out of control. Your church says that God wants you to have many children, so get to it. And after you've had six or seven, don't let that stop you from adopting. Prime targets should be kids in developing countries who are in desperate need of being converted to your faith.

PDB #11: Everything is "God's will".

Now that you are ready to have children, don't bother with prenatal vitamins or testing yourselves for being carriers of genetic diseases. There's also no point in inoculating your children against disease or taking other precautions to ensure they are healthy. After all, you have no control over these situations, since everything is God's will. In fact, trying to mess with the system will only offend the Almighty.

PDB #12: Faith healing is superior to medical care.

Who needs doctors when you can consult one-on-one with God? And when was the last time you saw a hospital perform a miracle? So, if your child gets sick, pray, anoint her with oil, and perform other rituals to get God to hear your heartfelt pleas. By the way, if your child fails to recover, do not lose faith; her health deteriorated because your faith wavered. Solution: Next time, pray harder.

The Real Michael Pearl

Both TV and print media have pitted me against the pro-spanking fundamentalist Christian preacher Michael Pearl, as I have been vocal about my concerns that his teachings about childrearing are dangerous. I have written extensively about Pearl in Breaking Their Will, and this is the second blog I have written about him.

As Pearl notes both on his website and in his book To Train Up a Child, which has sold in the hundreds of thousands, children should not be disciplined but "trained", and this should mostly be accomplished by spanking them. (Pearl prefers the word "spanking" over "corporal punishment".) To back up his views, Pearl, who has had no training in child psychology, quotes from the Old Testament, maintaining that God wants parents to spank their kids.

[image error]Pearl's methods include making children who are challenged with potty training take cold baths, denying food to disobedient children, and whipping them with quarter-inch plumbing line. Pearl sees nothing wrong with applying his techniques to infants. One expert recently denounced Pearl's techniques as interfering with child development. Most alarming, some children have been seriously abused by adults who were followers of Pearl. Three children have been killed.

The American public has become more familiar with Pearl's teachings, thanks to recent national media exposure. We understand that Pearl does not advocate abuse and tells parents not to spank in anger. But I am going to show you a side of Michael Pearl few have seen, using his own words. As I state in Breaking Their Will, what is most concerning about authoritarian religious authorities is that they come between parents and their children, usurping parents' ability to make their own decisions concerning childrearing. This phenomenon is agonizingly evidenced in an article Pearl wrote in his newsletter in 2009.

In the article, entitled "Child Training Marathon", Pearl delightedly recalls an incident that took place when he was spending time with a family after the parents had come to him for advice on how to discipline their kids. I describe this scenario in my book in a section called "Breaking Wills".

Pearl recounts riding in the family's car late at night when the family's toddler son becomes upset. He was not sitting near his mother and wanted to sit in her lap. The preacher describes the boy as having "a tough hide that at times absolutely resisted all control. He would whine, and whine, and cry, and plead, and demand." Then Pearl writes,

Mother was reaching for her baby when the father turned to me and asked, "What should I do?" Again I explained the principle: by allowing the child to dictate terms through his whining and crying, you are confirming his habit of whining and consenting to his technique of control. So I told the daddy to tell the boy that he would not be allowed to sit in his mother's lap, and that he was to stop crying. Of course, according to former protocol, he intensified his crying to express the sincerity of his desires. . . . I told the father to stop the car and without recourse give him three to five licks with a switch. After doing so the child only screamed a louder protest. This is not the time to give in. After two or three minutes driving down the road listening to his background wails, I told the father to COMMAND the child to stop crying. He only cried more loudly.

The crying and stopping the car and spanking continue with Pearl's approval. "This was repeated for about twenty miles down a lonesome highway at 11:00 on a winter night," he writes. Meanwhile, no one heeds the concerns of the mother, whom Pearl describes as a woman who had been emotionally and physically abused as a child and who was, as he puts it, "a very 'sensitive' person". She tells the men that the boy "doesn't understand". She had also remarked that he was hungry, sleepy, and cold. Pearl then writes:

I told the father to command the boy to stop crying immediately or he would again be spanked. The boy ignored him until Father took his foot off the gas, preparatory to stopping. In the midst of his crying, he understood the issues well enough to understand that the slowing of the car was a response to his crying. The family was relieved to have him stop and the father started to resume his drive.

But, according to Pearl, the child had not yet been properly trained. In his view, the boy's behavior still required more spanking.

I said "No; you told him he was to stop crying immediately or you would spank him; he waited until you began stopping. He has not obeyed; he is just beginning to show confidence in your resolve. Spank him again and tell him that you will continue to stop and continue to spank until you get instant compliance." He did. . . . This time, after the spanking, when Daddy gave his command, the boy dried it up like a paper towel. The parents had won, and the boy was the beneficiary.

Actually, I believe that the person who gained the greatest feeling of satisfaction that night was Pearl. The fact that his methods had been successfully used to subdue a two- or three-year-old child proved to him that, yes, he had, indeed, come upon the holy grail of childrearing. He sums up the experience, saying the boy was "a tough nut to break, but it [Pearl's spanking method] was a simple procedure that didn't hurt anyone but the parents."

[image error]But Pearl's grip on parents is slipping. National exposure of Pearl's teachings and of the abuses that have followed are leading many Americans to abhor the preacher from Tennessee. Following the publication of a New York Times article on Pearl, an online petition urging Amazon to stop selling Pearl's book attracted hundreds of signatures.

Of course, parents who buy into the idea that Pearl is a religious authority and who are obsessed with child obedience will continue to follow his methods. Some may see Pearl's teachings as a license to hurt, and even to kill. We should not be surprised if we hear that another child has been "trained" to death. Yet, at the same time, many more Americans realize that Pearl's teachings are harmful and pose a risk to untold numbers of children throughout the United States and elsewhere.

Is Bishop Finn above the law? Some Catholics say yes.

Why is it when religious leaders are accused, or even convicted, of abusing or neglecting children, the devout rush to defend them? Take the case of Bishop Robert Finn of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese in Missouri. On October 14, Finn and the diocese were indicted for failing to report a priest who allegedly engaged in child pornography. (Fr. Shawn Ratigan faces 3 state child pornography charges and 13 federal charges for possessing, producing, and attempting to produce child pornography.)

Now, many Catholics are glad that Finn is being prosecuted. In an article for the Kansas City Star, a "cradle Catholic" teacher named Nancy Kelly Waters writes that she is "outraged" that the diocese denied wrongdoing and promised to mount a vigorous defense.

"Bishop Finn, what exactly are you planning to vigorously defend? Do you believe you are blameless? I believe you made a moral mistake when you knowingly let a suspected pedophile remain at large with no legal investigation merely because he worked for the church," Waters writes.

In a letter to the editor of the Star, Greg Collins explains that he grew up as an alter boy who had not been abused. Collins says he will continue to attend church and to pray, "but I will pass on the collection plate until Bishop Finn steps down and comes clean."

[image error]

Bishop Robert Finn

But many other Catholics are eager to support Finn. They say he is being singled out, since other diocese employees—who knew even more about Ratigan's prurient behavior than Finn and chose to do little more than wring their hands—have not been charged with any crimes.

Finn supporters point out that, once Ratigan was arrested, the bishop cooperated with the investigation and commissioned an independent review panel to investigate the diocese's handling of abuse cases. Finally, these defenders rightly note, Finn should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But is Finn deserving of a get-out-of-jail-free card? The bishop openly admitted that his diocese suffered from "serious lapses in communication" that have "caused us shame, anger, and confusion." According to a report issued by the outside panel, Finn and other diocesan leaders failed to follow their own guidelines regarding the handling of abuse cases. Furthermore, Finn has yet to explain why

When Finn learned that a school principal had serious concerns that Fr. Shawn Ratigan had acted inappropriately with children, he did not read the principal's report.
When he learned that there were disturbing photographs on Ratigan's laptop, he did not view the photographs, even though the laptop was in the possession of the diocese.
He did not report the case to police, but, instead, moved Ratigan to a location where he would have limited contact with children, ordering him to have no contact with children and take no photographs of children.

[image error]

Nicholas P. Cafardi

And yet, church officials have refused to speak out against Finn. In fact, their silence on the case has been so deafening that noted canon law scholar Nicholas P. Cafardi was compelled to tell the National Catholic Reporter that U.S. bishops should privately urge Finn to resign.

Catholic congregants, on the other hand, state their support for Finn loud and clear. This defense was evidenced by comments written in response to Greg Collins' letter to the editor. Readers chastised him for refusing to tithe, even though his money could very well have ended up in the pockets of Finn's lawyers.

One finger-wagging individual writes: "If you pass on the collection plate, you disregard your own duties as a christian [sic], which is what Bp Finn is being accused of. I KNOW. The actions are different but BOTH are a dereliction of duty."

"Your passing on the collection plate. . . will hurt your own parish and your own walk with God," says another.

Still another urges, "Our great Bishop Finn has apologized many times for any 'lapse in judgement [sic]'." The writer goes on to say, "As with all great leaders, he is dealing in a positive and effective way with a crisis situation."

We have to ask, would these supporters have been just as forgiving of a CEO of a retail business who had been accused of protecting a pedophile, going so far as to oppose a boycott of the man's business? It's interesting to note that few supporters proclaim that Finn is actually innocent. And this got me thinking . . . In addition to the justifications mentioned earlier, could there be something embedded in the Catholic belief system that motivates worshipers to unquestionably support a bishop and other Catholic leaders swimming in scandal?

I believe there is. Simply put, some worshipers feel that Catholic authorities, regardless of what they've done or what they have been accused of having done, are above the law.

Catholics tend to not simply respect their leaders, they revere them, even worship them. It's a dangerous stance that explains how so much abuse happens in the first place. As I note in Breaking Their Will, many children have been molested by priests because parents allowed those men to spend one-on-one time with the victims. Background checks were not even considered. And in many cases, when victims told their parents what Father so-and-so did, the children were not believed or were punished.

And it's no wonder that parents have acted this way, for they, too, grew up believing that priests and bishops could do no wrong, and if they did misbehave, their actions would be dealt with inside the church. And who propagated this notion? The Roman Catholic Church, of course. While the pope and other church officials now strongly state that bishops should follow the law in reporting abuse cases, the church has historically made it its business to insulate its upper ranks from the law.

One woman's comment on the Facebook page "Bishop Finn Must Go" epitomizes this pollyanna viewpoint: "A good priest follows the laws of God; His Word. There should be no need for civil law for the pope, cardinals, bishops and priests. The Word of the Lord supercedes any civil law." (I asked the writer if she believed that clergy should not be put through the criminal justice system. She replied, saying that what she had meant was that Catholic leaders should be subject to civil law, but, in addition, they should also "hold themselves to a higher judgment".)

Bishop Finn is not unfamiliar with cases of clergy-perpetrated child sexual abuse. In 2008, he settled with 47 plaintiffs in a $10 million lawsuit. I would venture to say that, what partly motivated Finn to keep the Ratigan matter within the diocese, rather than report the priest to civil authorities, was Finn's belief that cases in which church authorities have been accused of child sexual abuse should generally be dealt with by church officials, not judges, prosecutors, and juries. Perhaps that mindset—that church authorities are above the law—is what Finn was talking about when he publicly stated, "Things must change. I also have to change."

I believe Finn will change, even if he is exonerated. And, to his credit, I think he already has changed. After Ratigan was arrested, Finn met with parents at the school where the priest taught. There, Finn learned just how his own failure to stop the abuses had impacted people's lives, as some parents wrote angry, anonymous notes to the bishop.

"The images of my daughter's private areas that the FBI showed me, they are forever burned into my brain," one parent writes. Another parent's note cuts to the core: "That monster was in my house . . . to prey on my children and I let him in, since you felt you were above the law and made that decision not to turn in photos of my kids."

Is Bishop Finn above the law? Many Catholics say yes.

Why is it that when religious leaders are accused, or even convicted, of abusing or neglecting children, the devout rush to defend them? Take the case of Bishop Robert Finn of the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese in Missouri. On October 14, Finn and the diocese were indicted for failing to report a priest who allegedly engaged in child pornography. (Fr. Shawn Ratigan faces 3 state child pornography charges and 13 federal charges alleging he possessed, produced, and attempted to produce child pornography.)

Now, many Catholics are glad that Finn is being prosecuted. A "cradle Catholic" teacher writes in an article for the Kansas City Star that she is "outraged" that the diocese denied wrongdoing and promised to mount a vigorous defense. A man who grew up as an alter boy (he says he was not abused) wrote a letter to the editor in the Kansas City Star, stating he would continue attend church and pray, "but I will pass on the collection plate until Bishop Finn steps down and comes clean."

[image error]

Bishop Robert Finn

But many other Catholics are eager to support Finn. They say that he is being singled out, since a number of individuals in the diocese knew more about Ratigan's prurient behavior than Finn did and still chose to do little more than wring their hands. Supporters point out that, once Ratigan was arrested, Finn cooperated with the investigation and commissioned an independent review panel to investigate the diocese's handling of the Ratigan case. Finally, they rightly note, Finn should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But is Finn deserving of a get-out-of-jail-free card? The bishop openly admitted that his diocese suffered from "serious lapses in communication" that have "caused us shame, anger, and confusion." And Finn has yet to explain why, according to a report issued by the aforementioned panel, he failed to take other actions, such as contacting police, even after

he learned that a school principal had expressed concerns that Fr. Shawn Ratigan had acted inappropriately with children (Finn did not choose to read the principal's report.)
he learned that there were disturbing photographs on Ratigan's laptop. (Finn did not choose to view the photographs even though the laptop was in the possession of the diocese.)
he moved Ratigan to a location where he would have had limited contact with children
he ordered the priest to have no contact with children and take no photographs of them
he discovered that Ratigan had violated the no-contact order

And yet, Catholic congregants go so far as to turn on their own for criticizing Finn. The man who grew up as an alter boy and wrote the aforementioned letter to the editor was chastised for refusing to tithe, despite the fact that his money could very well have ended up in the pockets of Finn's lawyers.

One finger-wagging comment reads: "If you pass on the collection plate, you disregard your own duties as a christian [sic], which is what Bp Finn is being accused of. I KNOW. The actions are different but BOTH are a dereliction of duty."

"Your passing on the collection plate. . . will hurt your own parish and your own walk with God," reads another.

Still another urges, "Our great Bishop Finn has apologized many times for any "lapse in judgement [sic]." The write goes on to say, "As with all great leaders, he is dealing in a positive and effective way with a crisis situation."

[image error]

Nicholas P. Cafardi

We have to ask, would these supporters have been just as forgiving of a CEO of a retail business who had been accused of protecting a pedophile, going so far as to oppose a boycott of the man's business?

It's interesting that many supporters don't proclaim that Finn is innocent. And church officials have largely remained silent, so silent that noted canon law scholar Nicholas P. Cafardi told the National Catholic Reporter that U.S. bishops should privately urge Finn to resign.

In addition to the reasons given earlier, could there be something else embedded in the Catholic belief system that motivates worshipers to unquestionably support the bishop? I believe there is. Simply put, many Catholics believe that Catholic authorities, regardless of what they've done or what they have been accused of having done, are above the law.

Many Catholics do not simply respect their leaders, they revere them, even worship them. It's a dangerous stance. In fact, it explains how religious institutions and communities became mired in scandal in the first place. As I note in Breaking Their Will, many children have been molested by priests after parents allowed those men to spend one-on-one time with the victims. Often, background checks were never even considered. In many cases, parents have not believed their children when they reported what had happened. Sometimes, those kids were punished for saying something so terrible about Father so-and-so.

While the Catholic Church now clearly states that bishops should follow the law in reporting abuse cases, it has historically made it its business to insulate its upper ranks from the law. In fact, church officials have advocated against bishops being mandated to report priests who have admitted to having sexually abused children.

One woman posting a comment on the Facebook page "Bishop Finn Must Go" seems to buy into the idea that Finn's religious status exempts him from criminal prosecution: "A good priest follows the laws of God; His Word. There should be no need for civil law for the pope, cardinals, bishops and priests. The Word of the Lord supercedes any civil law."  (I asked the writer what she thought should be done to those who fail to protect children from abuse, but she did not respond.)

I would venture to say that, what partly motivated Finn to deal directly with Ratigan and keep the matter within the diocese, rather than report the priest to civil authorities, was Finn's belief that cases in which church authorities have been accused of child sexual abuse, should almost always be dealt with by church officials, not judges, prosecutors, and juries. Perhaps that's why Finn has publicly stated, "Things must change. I also have to change."

Even if Finn is exonerated, I am sure that he will, indeed, change. Not only because he will have endured the shame of a very public trial, but because his neglectful actions have forced him to face the problem of clergy-perpetrated child sexual abuse in a very real way. After Ratigan's arrest, Finn met with parents at the school where Ratigan worked. Some of those parents wrote angry, anonymous notes to the bishop.

One reads: "The images of my daughter's private areas that the FBI showed me, they are forever burned into my brain." Another reads: "That monster was in my house . . . to prey on my children and I let him in, since you felt you were above the law and made that decision not to turn in photos of my kids."