Janet Heimlich's Blog, page 5

People are talking about religious child maltreatment

I have just returned from Seattle, a trip that was fun, inspiring, and also sad. Initially, I had planned to celebrate the release of Breaking Their Will with friends and others at a dinner party and then hold a talk and booksigning at a church. Those two events went off without a hitch, and I'll tell you about them in a minute. However, just before I was set to leave, several people emailed me about a tragic criminal case that was unfolding just outside of Seattle. Due to the high-profile nature of the case, I found myself talking to members of the media about religious child maltreatment.

The dinner party was spectacular. Dozens of people came together to sip wine and share a meal together. Not only did I have a chance to reconnect with old friends, but I also spent time with illustrious individuals who have been educating the public about harmful religious practices. Valerie Tarico was my generous host. Some of you may remember that I blogged about Valerie's book, Trusting Doubt, which, along with her Youtube channel, compassionately points fundamentalist believers toward a path paved with critical thinking.

Me with Ophelia Benson

I also got to know Ophelia Benson whose Butterflies and Wheels blog I enjoy reading. Ophelia's many followers appreciate her no-nonsense approach to exposing religious abuses. Another person I had been looking forward to meeting was Andrew Himes, who grew up in a prestigious fundamentalist Baptist family. Andrew's book The Sword of the Lord is named after the newspaper his grandfather founded. After learning that Andrew's family knew two powerful and, as they concern children, dangerous religious leaders whom I write about in my book—and that Andrew had memories of meeting both of them when he was young—I peppered him with questions.

Rich and Deanna Lyons with My Daughter

On Sunday, I was interviewed by Rich Lyons, who, along with his wife Deanna, produce the Living After Faith podcast. I appreciated that, during the interview, Rich revealed his own experiences growing up in a strict, Pentecostal community in Texas and how he continues to struggle with self-esteem issues common among many raised in that faith. Afterward the interview, he and Deanna were kind enough to give my daughter and me a tour of some of Seattle's landmarks, including The Shanty restaurant (we all needed breakfast) and the Space Needle.

Hana Williams

That evening, I spoke to a group at the University Temple United Methodist Church, and later that night, KOMO-TV broadcast a segment on the criminal case I spoke of earlier. It concerns parents who were recently arrested for what could only be described as punishing their 13-year-old adoptive daughter to death. Evidence shows that Carri and Larry Williams were followers of the Tennessee-based, pro-spanking minister, Michael Pearl. As in two other cases in which children have died at the hands of Pearl's followers, Hana Williams failed to survive her parents' alleged persistent demands that she unquestioningly obey them. Fortunately, the media was not shy about investigating the religious angle. In addition to the KOMO news story, I was interviewed by Jeff Hodson of the Seattle Times, and blogger Samuel Martin asked me to write a guest post.

The Hana Williams case cast a dark shadow on the trip, but the connections and events that took place were affirming. I left the Northwest feeling that many Americans are open to talking about religious child maltreatment as a first step to trying to eradicate it.

Religious patriarchy does not harm only women

It's hard to believe that women in a family would not do all they could to come to the aid of a dying infant. But that is what happened in the case of David Hickman. The infant was born two months premature and died nearly nine hours after birth in 2009. The cause of death was respiratory distress, a condition common in preemies whose lungs are usually not fully developed. The baby's parents, Shannon and Dale Hickman, are currently on trial in Oregon for failing to provide the baby medical care. The couple belongs to the Followers of Christ, a church that believes that only faith healing can cure the sick.

Dale and Shannon Hickman

While on the witness stand, Dale Hickman said his son seemed fine at birth, even though the infant weighed just over 3-1/2 pounds. Then, several hours later, Hickman said he noticed that the baby was having difficulty breathing. And yet, David Hickman stated, "There was nothing that could have been done" to save his son, so he just held him until he died.

As shocking as it is that a father would not rush to the phone and call 9-1-1 in such a situation, it should also be noted that there were several female church members attending to the newborn, including his grandmother, Karen White. White testified that the infant's breathing was audible and she "could hear something in his throat." Why didn't these women—upon viewing a child that weighed as much as a large grapefruit and who was not breathing normally—rush him to the emergency room?

Because they were members of a church that believed that women must always defer to men. When asked why she didn't call 9-1-1, White said, "I am a woman in the church," adding, "It's not my place to do that." When Shannon Hickman was asked the same question, she replied, "The wife submits to the man, and he's the head of the household." And so, the family simply prayed and anointed the dying baby with olive oil.

We shouldn't necessarily forbid women from practicing religious customs that are rooted in patriarchal beliefs. We should acknowledge that many such women are victims of oppression and risk too much to go against the grain. However, they are adults, who often have the ability to walk away from oppressive religious communities in search of more progressive ones. Plus, women commonly uphold religious patriarchal beliefs. For example, many Evangelical Christian women justify the dictum that they "submit" to their husbands. And last week, Muslim women in Paris held a press conference protesting France's ban on the wearing of Islamic face veils.

Here's a more pressing question: What affect does religious patriarchy have on children? Sure, not all kids raised in patriarchal religious cultures fare poorly, but, just as in the case of the Hickmans, a child's well-being tends to rely on what kind of guy their father is. If he's not a power-monger in the home, or if he is courageous enough to reject his community's patriarchal beliefs, chances are his children won't be too harmed by them.

But what if neither of these things is true? Or worse, what if the father or another man in the community is abusing a child? If that happens, there's little chance that the abuse will stop. Why? Because children cannot look to the women of their community to protect them. Time and time again, we hear about cases in which women can't or refuse to stand up to men who are harming children, to say nothing of reporting them.

Take, for example, the mother of televangelist Billy Graham. From what Morrow Graham writes in her autobiography, it's apparent that the young Billy could not count on his mother to rescue him from his father's harsh physical punishments:

Billy was always full of pranks; sometimes he carried things a bit too far, and off came his father's belt. Mr. Graham never punished in anger or desperation, but when he did see the necessity for correction, I winced. At such times I had to remind myself of another Proverb: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die" (Proverbs 23:13). More than once, I wiped tears from my eyes and turned my head so the children wouldn't see, but I always stood behind my husband when he administered discipline. I knew he was doing what was biblically correct. And the children didn't die!

Elissa Wall

Many women in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have willingly handed their underage daughters over to men in the sect to be "spiritually married." One such victim was Elissa Wall, who was forced to marry her nineteen-year-old cousin when she was fourteen. Wall was just interviewed by Anderson Cooper who asked whether family members tried to stop the marriage. Wall explained that her father had been excommunicated and her mother had been "resealed" to another man. "My mother didn't have the ability to say no," said Wall. "The women . . . don't have the ability to protect their children. And I was a representation of that. She couldn't step up and say, 'No, my daughter is fourteen.'"

If a mother, a grandmother, and other women in a religious community can't or won't protect children from maltreatment, where does that leave us? What kind of a society interferes with a woman's natural desire to protect children from being denied life-saving medical care, from being beaten, from being raped?

 

[Update: On September 29, 2011, a jury unanimously convicted Dale and Shannon Hickman in the faith-healing death of their infant son, David. Both parents were found guilty of second-degree manslaughter, a Class B felony that requires a sentence of at least 6 years and 3 months in prison. However, because of a religious exemption that was eliminated after the Hickmans were indicted, they could face no more than 18 months in prison and a $250,000 fine.]

Religious patriarchy does not only harm women

It's hard to believe that women in a family would not do all they could to come to the aid of a dying infant. But that is what happened in the case of David Hickman. The infant was born two months premature and died nearly nine hours after birth. The cause of death was respiratory distress, a condition common in preemies whose lungs are often not fully developed. The baby's parents, Shannon and Dale Hickman, are currently on trial in Oregon for failing to provide the baby medical care. The couple belongs to the Followers of Christ, a church that believes in administering faith healing to the sick.

Dale and Shannon Hickman

The baby's parents were not the only ones who could have helped save his life. Shannon Hickman had on attendance three female church members who could have called 9-1-1 when she went into labor or when she delivered the infant who weighed only 3 pounds, 7 ounces. Also, David's grandmother, Karen White, testified at the trial that, shortly before David died, his breathing was audible. "I could hear something in his throat," she said.

Still, White said she never considered calling for emergency medical care. Instead, the family prayed and anointed David with olive oil, because, as White testified, "That's what the Bible tells us to do." When asked why she did not call 9-1-1, she explained, "I am a woman in the church." The Followers of Christ believe that wives must defer to their husbands. "It's not my place to do that," said White.

I don't believe that we should necessarily deny women the right to practice religious customs if those customs are based on patriarchal beliefs. While it's clear that many women in these cultures are victims, they are still adults who, as difficult as it may be at times, can often leave those their communities in search of more progressive ones. Plus, women of all walks of life commonly uphold patriarchal beliefs. Many Evangelical Christian women choose to "submit" to their husbands. Last week, Muslim women in Paris held a press conference protecting the ban on the wearing of Islamic face veils.

To me, a more pressing question is, what affect does religious patriarchy have on children? Sure, not all kids raised in patriarchal religious cultures fare poorly, but here's the thing: Whether children are allowed to thrive and their needs are being met largely depend on what kind of guy their father is. If he's not a power-monger in the home, or if he is courageous enough to reject his community's patriarchal beliefs, chances are his children won't be too harmed by them.

Morrow Graham

But if neither happens, children are at risk for abuse and neglect, especially if the abuser is a man. Why? Because children cannot look to the women of their community to protect them. Time and time again, I have read about cases in which women do not stand up to men who are abusing their children, to say nothing of reporting them. Take, for example, the mother of televangelist Billy Graham. Morrow C. Graham was beloved by many, and yet her son could not count on her to rescue him from his father's harsh physical punishments. In her autobiography, she describes fighting her maternal instincts when her husband was beating Billy:

Billy was always full of pranks; sometimes he carried things a bit too far, and off came his father's belt. Mr. Graham never punished in anger or desperation, but when he did see the necessity for correction, I winced. At such times I had to remind myself of another Proverb: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die" (Proverbs 23:13). More than once, I wiped tears from my eyes and turned my head so the children wouldn't see, but I always stood behind my husband when he administered discipline. I knew he was doing what was biblically correct. And the children didn't die!

The patriarchal system of a reclusive, Mennonite colony in Bolivia is being partly blamed for the rapes of scores of women and girls. The victims were heavily drugged and raped from 2005 to 2009. Critics say, the women are severely oppressed in that culture, and, as a result, when victims complained to their husbands and fathers of pain and foggy memories, they were not believed. Also, it took years for a case to be reported.

Finally, it has been widely reported that women in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have willingly handed their underage daughter over to men in the sect to be "spiritually married." One such victim was Elissa Wall, who was forced to marry her nineteen-year-old cousin when she was fourteen. Wall was just interviewed by Anderson Cooper who asked her whether family members tried to stop the marriage. Wall explained that her father was virtually powerless because sect leader Warren Jeffs had "resealed" her mother to another man, " and my mother didn't have the ability to say no," said Wall. "The women—especially my mother in the position she was at—they don't have the ability to protect their children. And I was a representation of that. She couldn't step up and say, 'No, my daughter is fourteen.'"

If a mother, a grandmother, and other women in a religious community can't or won't protect children from abuse, where does that leave us? What kind of a society denies women the right to protect children from being denied life-saving medical care, from being beaten, and being raped?

You know a tragedy has reached epidemic proportions when we start joking about it

A friend and child advocate recently emailed me a 2002 article that appeared in the satirical newspaper The Onion . The headline reads: "Pope Forgives Molested Children."

I get it. And, yet, I wish there wasn't something to get. After all, the reason why this is sickeningly funny is because we now understand that untold numbers of children throughout the world have been victimized by priests, nuns, and other church authorities while the Roman Catholic Church imposed institutional secrecy.

"Humor is tragedy plus time," said Mark Twain. And enough time has passed that we are no longer shocked when we read about a criminal case involving a pedophilic priest or a lawsuit against an archdiocese accused of covering up such crimes. The "soul murders" of children has, tragically, become commonplace. We laugh, partly to psychologically deal with the enormity of the tragedy.

Father Thomas P. Doyle and coauthors write in Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse that revelations of abuses by the media in the last decade actually point to what is a very old problem in the church:

Clergy sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults has occurred from the earliest centuries. It has been known to church authorities and is a predictable but highly unfortunate feature of clerical life. It has been denied and hidden by bishops and popes who have consistently acted in a conspiratorial manner to prevent instances of abuse from becoming publicly known, especially to law enforcement authorities.

Given this history, the Catholic Church deserves the Onion spoofing. As it has long sought to fulfill an agenda of protecting its image and maintaining power, the church has apparently viewed children's pain as regrettable collateral damage. Psychotherapist Simon Feuerman notes of the Onion writers in Psychology Today, "The genius of the humor is that they pick up on something felt, but not said—the possible unconscious intent."

Or maybe not that unconscious. The Onion piece brings to mind the allegation that the church has not, until recently, even considered child abuse victims to be true victims. A careful reading of a 1962 Vatican document that establishes rules for how to handle cases of "grave delicts" by clerics refers to their sexual acts as those having been committed with minors, not against them. Houston Attorney Daniel Shea, a man I interviewed in Breaking Their Will, got a bishop to admit in a courtroom that the church document should be interpreted to mean that the minor is the sinning priest's "accomplice."

So the Onion is not that far off when it quotes Pope John Paul II in a papal decree; "Though grave and terrible sins have been committed, our Lord teaches us to turn the other cheek and forgive those who sin against us. That is why, despite the terrible wrongs they have committed, the church must move on and forgive these children for their misdeeds."

Louie CK

Ironically, the church's attempts to maintain a pure image has backfired, to say the least. One need only look at Louie CK's Youtube video to see just how far the church's image has plummeted. In the mockumentary, the comedian says he wants to unlock the mystery of the Catholic Church and research "what it's all about." So he interviews a priest who serves as the spokesperson for the Catholic Archdiocese of New York (an actor). Bearing a herculean straight face, the priest explains that the church's purpose is to sexually assault young boys and that religious worship is "just busy work." The video uses crude language and cringe-evoking graphics, and it is, sadly—and brilliantly—funny.

But humor only works when it is based on some tragic element of truth. And in the case of the Catholic Church, the truth is not funny at all. It hurts.

The Last Victims: A letter to Zariah

Below is an online letter to twelve-year-old Zariah Schatz, the older sister of Lydia Schatz. Four years ago, the girls were adopted from the Republic of Liberia by Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz of Paradise, California. On February 4 and 5, 2010, the couple "biblically" whipped their daughters for hours on end. The children's "crimes"? Lydia, who was seven at the time, had gotten a word wrong during a homeschooling lesson; Zariah, the Schatzes determined, was a "liar" and a "bad influence" on her sister. According to authorities, when the Schatzes beat Lydia, they took breaks to pray. They then resumed the torture, as one held the child down while the other whipped her with 1/4-inch wide plumbing line. Lydia died from the beatings. Zariah barely survived, having suffered kidney failure and other injuries. A ten-year-old biological son was also injured.


[image error]The Schatzes did not come up with their disciplinary methods all on their own. They were followers of the Tennessee-based No Greater Joy Ministries, which is operated by a fundamentalist Christian minister named Michael Pearl and his wife, Debi. The Pearls' book To Train up a Child is hugely popular among Christian homeschooling parents; it has sold more than 650,000 copies and has been translated into many foreign languages, according to the Pearls' website. The Pearls strongly advocate for the spanking of children—even those who have committed minor infractions—saying that God demands that parents spank. The Pearls suggests that spankers use implements rather than the hand, because "hands are for loving and helping." 

[image error]In particular, the Pearls believe that 1/4-inch-wide plumbing line is ideal for spanking children. "It will fit in your purse or hang around your neck. You can buy them [sic] for $1.00 at Home Depot or any hardware store," notes Michael Pearl on his website. He adds that sections of the pipe "come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility keeps kids in line." The Pearls' book was found in the Schatz home with passages underlined. Police photographed a section of 1/4-inch plumbing pipe lying on the parents' bed next to a children's book.

On June 10, 2010, Kevin Schatz pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and torture and was sentenced to two life terms; he will serve a minimum of 22 years. Elizabeth Schatz pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and infliction of unlawful corporal punishment and received a sentence of 13 years. During the trial, Zariah addressed the court. She spoke in a soft voice and occasionally broke down in sobs. She said Lydia had meant the world to her, and she said, "I don't know what I did to deserve what you did to me." 


[image error]

Lydia Schatz

Lydia and Zariah were not the first victims to suffer at the hands of those who follow the Pearls' teachings. On February 26, 2006, Lynn Paddock of North Carolina killed her son, four-year-old Sean, by wrapping him in blankets so tightly that he suffocated. The Pearls do not tell parents to do this, h owever, according to witnesses, Paddock was an avid believer in the Pearls' teachings and had beaten Sean and her other children with the same kind of plumbing line that the Pearls recommend. As I note in my book Breaking Their Will, Paddock, like the Schatzes, had a copy of the Pearls' book and sections of plumbing pipe in her home. She was found guilty of first-degree murder and child abuse and sentenced to life in prison.

Michael Pearl, who has had no clinical training in child psychology, rejects criticism that his teachings lead parents to abuse their children. He points out that his book warns parents not to spank in anger. "There are always some that act in the extreme," he says.

____________________________

Dear Zariah,

How many of us could possibly comprehend your pain?

You were taken from your homeland of Liberia, adopted by a couple who already had many children. Perhaps those adults were compassionate on some level, for they also adopted your younger sister Lydia and another small child. Undoubtedly, many were convinced that this man and woman were good people. After all, they were devout Christians who believed in living life according to the Bible.

But we now know the truth about these people. They were obsessed with obedience and allowed the words of one minister to justify the abusive actions that grew out of their obsession. Throughout the time that you and Lydia were tortured, your abusers were convinced that their religion required them to whip you. They took breaks to pray to a god they most likely believed was rooting them on.

You nearly died from the whippings, and you lost your sister Lydia, whose tiny frame could not withstand the brutality that the Schatz's inflicted upon her. Experts have compared Lydia's injuries to those found on the bodies of earthquake and bombing victims. Due to their cruel actions, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz will spend a long time in prison. How grateful we are that you survived, partly so that you could face your perpetrators at trial and bravely ask them about your beloved sister: "Why did you adopt her? To kill her?" you said.

You must wonder, what kind of country is this, where people injure and kill children in the name of faith; where people take the word of a minister who claims that "God spanks His children"; where people express their religious "freedom" by physically, sexually, and emotionally abusing children?

You may hear about other victims of religious child maltreatment, such as those who are sexually abused by religious leaders, who are given so much power that they can easily overpower victims. Or children who are so inculcated with religious dogma that their brains go numb. Or children who die from normally treatable medical conditions, due to the fact that their parents were convinced that prayer, not doctors, would cure them.

It is a sad picture, but I also want you to you know that these perpetrators are in the minority. Most people of faith understand the difference between living according to one's religious beliefs and being consumed by those beliefs. Most people of faith do not indoctrinate children, but teach them different worldviews. Most people of faith would not sacrifice the health and safety of children to fulfill a twisted religious agenda.

I believe that a majority of Americans feel that a child's right to a happy, healthy, and safe life trumps everything else, including the right to practice religious rituals. They recognize that faith doctrines—such as those that tell worshipers to spank their kids, that women are inferior to men, or that gays and lesbians are offensive to God—should be left in history books. I believe most Americans would say that the only religious beliefs worth subscribing to are those that promote tolerance, acceptance, and love.

We accept the harsh truth that you are one of many survivors of this kind of abuse. We recognize that religion can lead people to harm children. We admit that child maltreatment happens in religious communities and too often goes ignored. What you have endured is a harsh reminder of what can happen when religion gets into the wrong hands.

But we promise you this: We are committed to eradicating religious child maltreatment. We are talking about it and will continue to talk about it, because raising awareness of the problem is the first step. We are devastated by what happened to you and Lydia and would do whatever we could to ensure that you are the last victims.

Take good care,

Janet Heimlich

____________________________
Full coverage of the Schatz case can be found at these links: 

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/category/kevin-and-elizabeth-schatz

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-504083_162-504083.html?keyword=kevin+schatz

http://whynottrainachild.com/2011/06/11/zariah-schatz-speaks/

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/15/video-spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child/

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/16/video-spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child-part-2/?hpt=ac_t1

 

Leading with the heart and the mind: Two books offer help to those wanting to leave behind fundamentalist Christianity

Many people ask me if I was raised with the kind of fundamentalist, extremist, orthodox religious beliefs I write about. I was not. As I explain in Breaking Their Will , my religious upbringing was a "watered-down version of Judaism." Therefore, other than exposing the problem of religious child maltreatment and explaining how it happens, there is little I can do to help people who struggle with the emotional and psychological tangles left by a fundamentalist religious upbringing.

But now there are two books that reach out to those individuals, albeit in very different ways. Both are written by women who grew up in fundamentalist Christianity, so they know firsthand how such teachings can be woven throughout the fabric of a child's life and leave him or her with persistent feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and self-doubt that often extend far into adulthood.

[image error]In Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion (Apocryphile Press, rev. 2007), psychologist Marlene Winell explains how her faith was "central to my life for many years. . . .The benefits were real, especially as an adolescent." Winell grew up with parents who were missionaries in Asia. Despite where her family was located, Winell was "largely sheltered by the American subculture in Taiwan and had little contact with the Asian culture around us. Our family was in a foreign, heathen land for the purpose of teaching, not learning. Sadly, I remember strong sights, sounds, and smells in the Buddhist temples [that were] associated only with pity and disgust."

Things began to change for Winell when she attended high school in Southern California where she read modern poetry and philosophy. Then she attended University of California at Irvine, which, like most other college campuses in the 1960s, was exploding with free expression about everything from the Jesus Movement to the Vietnam War. "Encountering other ideas gave me new options," writes Winell. "As I became armed with alternatives, I was more willing to confront the problems in my religion, such as sexism, the notion of original sin, and the dichotomy of [being] 'saved' and [being] 'damned'. Allowing myself some intellectual integrity was an enormous relief." However, breaking from her religious past also was accompanied with "confusion, fear, anger, and grief." Winells writes that her departure became "a long and wrenching process, which tore at the fabric of my existence."

[image error]

Dr. Marlene Winell

In trying to help others who are thinking about leaving, or have already left, fundamentalist Christianity, Winell discusses what lies ahead. She explains that the process involves five phases: Separation, confusion, avoidance, feeling, and rebuilding. To bring things down to a real level, she frequently inserts quotes by others who have struggled with the transition. For example, a man named Daryl says that he feels "like a scared, lonely, abandoned little kid . . . who must be a real 'bad boy.'" He explains that this view of himself is connected to what he was taught when he was very young, that he was "nothingness in the eyes of God."

In her chapters devoted to healing, Winell invokes the "healing the child within" model, one that was originally developed for adult survivors of childhood trauma. She stresses the need for readers to develop a new relationship with one's inner child. For instance, she suggests that they start a log chronicling how they spend each day, noting what kinds of feelings come up, and even buying a doll. "This may seem corny or unnecessary," notes Winell, "however, it can be a very powerful tool in heping you feel that your child is real." Winell also teaches people how to fight the internal critical voice of the "idea monster" and to allow good and bad feelings to come to the surface.

[image error]Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light (Oracle Institute Press, rev. 2010) is written by Valerie Tarico, a counseling pychology scholar who consults with churches and secular groups on the subjects of morality, psychology, and spirituality. She also operates WisdomCommons.org, an interactive website that allows for discussion on these topics.

Like Winell, Tarico struggled with religious doubts while growing up in her Evangelical Christian community in Scottsdale, Arizona. "When I first started having misgivings about my faith, I did what any good Evangelical would [do]: I prayed. I was fifteen at the time, earnest and devout." And there were plenty of opportunities to pray, since Tarico's life as a youngster was steeped in faith. In addition to church services, she belonged to the Evangelical Girl Scouts, attended Bible study classes, and went to Christian camps and other youth programs. She even participated in the "I found It!" campaign, an Evangelical 1970s billboard media blitz. Yet Tarico had doubts, terrifying doubts. "I remember kneeling one night on the floor of my bedroom, crying, pleading for God to take them away, and then crawling into bed with some sense of relief."

Tarico attended Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, "a bulwark of conservative Christian education" since 1860, as she puts it. Still, as Tarico continued to question the Christian doctrines she had been brought up to believe, she began to psychologically fall apart. She developed an eating disorder—a youth minister advised her to pray on it—and she "plunged into absolute despair and self-loathing." After a failed attempt to take her life, she was hospitalized for a month. When she returned to school, her need to seek reason and scientific knowledge continued to chip away at her religious mindset until "there weren't many [religious] conclusions that made much sense. I no longer had clean answers about what was true, but my old ones clearly contradicted both morality and reason. The only hope I had of pursuing goodness and truth was to let those answers go."

Dr. Valerie Tarico

Unlike Winell, Tarico chooses to take the fundamentalist Christian reader (it appears that this is her ideal audience) not on an emotional journey, but an intellectual one. She examines traditional Christian doctrines the way a scientist might go about inspecting a meteor that dropped from an unknown galaxy. "When one examines the evidence related to Evangelical beliefs . . . when one examines all of [its doctrines] together through a lens of empiricism and logic, the composite suggests some kind of reality that is very different from the ideas that dominated my thinking for so long."

In conducting this examination, Tarico scrutinizes various aspects of Evangelical Christianity and biblical literalism. For instance, Tarico points out that Evangelical doctrines were inherited from Protestant orthodoxy, and before that, from Roman Catholic orthodoxy. "Evangelicals often deny this heritage and pretend they are only distant relatives. But don't be deceived. After all, children rarely like to acknowledge how much they are like their parents." Providing context to these ideas—describing their place in history—runs counter to Christian orthodoxy, which tends to presume that nothing of theological significance occurred before its appearance and anything afterward is the work of apostate cults.

In another example, Tarico points out that the Bible codifies sexism, anti-homosexual attitudes, and racism, and this creates a quandary for the scriptural literalist. Evangelicals "have little choice but to embrace these three attitudes, thus arguing that inequality is God's will" or to adopt the position that these ideas are acceptable. "The one stance pits them against morality and the other against reality." Tarico explains that no worshipper must feel obligated to choose either. Instead, the author says that believers could use critical thinking and a moral compass when reading scripture. For instance, she suggests that people inquire whether a passage reflects societal progress. Tarico encourages readers to question other fundamentalist Christian concepts, such as the idea of "one truth," the value of human suffering, the existence of miracles, the "fall," heaven, hell, and the idea that child reach a pre-set age of accountability.

Despite their differences, both Leaving the Fold and Trusting Doubt try to connect to readers who, to some degree or another, still clutch to the fundamentalist Christian beliefs of their childhood, fearing what will happen if they let go. Will they have no one to talk to? What will happen if they do not discover a "truth" that is as clear-cut as the belief system they grew up with? Will they go to hell? What if their doubts about faith are wrong?

The overall compassionate response from both authors seems to be the same: You have the strength and the intelligence to know how you feel and to think for yourself. You, more than anyone else, can determine what religious or spiritual beliefs add meaning to your life and which ones do not. What's more, even as there is a burgeoning fundamentalist Christian movement underway in America, more and more Christians are realizing that this is a dangerous path, one that is unhealthy for us all.

In this way, both Leaving the Fold and Trusting Doubt make a point that should resonate with anyone wanting to make the break away from religious fundamentalism: You are not alone.

A Child Is Killed and Rabbis Fail Abuse Victims Yet Again

The world was shocked upon learning that eight-year-old Leiby Kletzky had been kidnapped, murdered, and dismembered, and that the suspect was a man who lived in the child's Orthodox Jewish community of Brooklyn. Members of that community were devastated beyond words. One of their own had brutally killed a helpless child, who had also been one of their own. Journalist Eishes Chayil describes the horror that Jews felt in her recent article in the Huffington Post:

 

The ultra-Orthodox world of Brooklyn came to a terrifying halt. Tens of thousands of Orthodox Jews froze in horror. They recoiled in shock. They gathered together, bound in their mind-bending grief, people weeping in the streets, asking the questions again and again. How does such a thing happen? How does a Jew do such a thing? How, God, how?

But Chayil also states that many Jews were not shocked. In particular, survivors of child sexual abuse.

For the hundreds of victims of sexual abuse who have lived through childhood in fear and silence, this is not a new question. They did not know the words sexual, abuse or molestation, but lived day after day through the raw horror of it, leaving old scars still bleeding like open wounds. How does a teacher, a counselor, an uncle, do such a thing? And why did nobody warn us about it, they ask.

For too long, Orthodox Jewish Communities have kept silent about abuses that go on inside their socially isolated world. Children are raised to believe that only those on the outside do bad, evil things to people. They are told to fear outsiders and encouraged to completely trust anyone who is one of them.

But now more members of the community are talking about child sexual abuse. How yeshivas harbor pedophilic rabbis, and how incest is a reality in Jewish households. Some Jewish leaders and others are encouraging survivors to talk about their struggles in an attempt to lift the cursed veil that, as Brown says, blinds people from what is really going on.

Phil Jacobs

Members of the media are speaking out. Standing Silent (Bennett-Robbins Productions, 2011) is a new film featuring Phil Jacobs who spent years uncovering rabbi-perpetrated child sexual abuse for the Baltimore Jewish Times. (Jacobs now is editor of the Washington Jewish Week.) In his film, Jacobs compassionately allows abuse survivors to tell their stories, hounds rabbis accused of having molested children, and reveals that he, himself, was raped when he was young. In Standing Silent, Jacobs frequently describes how members of his community badger him about exposing the truth about child molesters in their midst.

As many members of the Orthodox Jewish community refuse to support Jacobs and other child advocates, there is one group that bears the most responsibility for failing victims: powerful, conservative rabbis who, by their very words, control how Jews interact with each other and live their lives. These religious leaders have historically warned Jews not to talk about child abuse to outsiders, claiming that this would violate such Jewish laws as mesirah—the reporting of one Jew by another to secular authorities—and lashon hara, harmful gossip. In fact, even as the frantic search for Leiby Kletzky was underway, one of the country's most prominent rabbis, Shmuel Kamenetsky, reiterated the mantra that Jews must consult a rabbi before reporting child sexual abuse to civil authorities.

But this has not stopped concerned Jews from speaking out. In her Huffington Post article, Eishes Chayil explains that, when she wrote her book, Hush, which exposes abuses in the Orthodox Jewish community, she used an alias to avoid being castigated by fellow Jews. (In fact, she did receive threatening letters.) Now, however, Chayil reveals her true identity.

For too long we have tiptoed around our flaws with fear and caution, pushing them into the shadows in hopes they will disappear. For too long, victims have been made to be the villains, and abuse was called loshon harah, evil talk. For too long, we have refused to honestly discuss the horrific possibilities, and in doing so allowed our children to fall victim to them. And for too long, I have allowed my own fear to make me part of a wall of silence—guilty for what I had seen, guilty for what I had written. I refuse to continue to allow that fear to force me into hiding over a book that should have been written long ago. I no longer want to be known only as Eishes Chayil when my name is Judy Brown. I must find the courage to stand with the victims who carry the burden of our silence for the rest of their lives.

Now it is up to rabbis and other members of the Jewish community to also find the courage to "stand with the victims" by talking about sexual abuse, supporting survivors' need of counseling, and reporting perpetrators to secular authorities.

The Abuse of Forgiveness

According to mental health experts, forgiving someone who has wronged us can improve our emotional well-being. Acts of forgiveness can have even more far ranging societal benefits. For example, the Rwanda gacaca genocide trials have relied on a system of forgiveness, allowing defendants who confess to receive lighter sentences. Part of the reason for adopting this system is to help victimized communities heal.

Forgiveness is a particularly important tenet of religions. In Matthew 18:21–22, Jesus says it's not enough to forgive a sinner seven times, but "seventy times seven."

"For a long time, forgiveness has been a mantra of religious people," writes psychologist Katheryn Rhoads Meek in a paper published by the Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University. Rhoads Meek adds that forgiveness is "the most crucial concept" in the Bible. Furthermore, she says,

Historically, the study of forgiveness fell under the purview of pastors and other religious leaders, who have long known the powerful healing benefits that come with both giving and receiving forgiveness. Lives are transformed, as hope takes the place of guilt, anger, loneliness, and fear, as relationships are restored, and the love of God transforms a life. [p. 89]

But the practice of forgiveness can be abused, and nowhere is this more apparent than in cases of religious child maltreatment. All too often, pious adults who learn that a child has been abused fail to do the right thing. That is, instead of reporting the incident or getting the victim counseling, they urge the child to forgive the perpetrator.

An example of such insensitivity was brought to light in a recent criminal trial. While testifying as a witness, a woman who identified herself as Cheryl said she had been molested by her stepfather from 1994 to 1996, when she was 17. Cheryl said she told her mother about the abuse when it first began, but the woman "acted like it was my fault." So the teenager confided in the pastor of her New Hampshire fundamentalist Baptist church, Chuck Phelps. According to the witness, Phelps told her she needed "to forgive and forget about it." Speaking through his attorney, Phelps has said he believed that the victim was 18 when the assaults began and that police and child protective services had been notified.

As I note in my book, Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment, Episcopal priest and pastoral psychotherapist Sarah Rieth states that, instead of supporting victims and reporting abusers, cases get swept under the rug. Rieth believes that the "seventy times seven" biblical mandate has, indeed, been abused. "Forgiveness has been confused with accountability," she told me.

Restorative justice pioneer, Howard Zehr, criticizes faith communities for failing victims of all kinds. In his chapter "Restorative Justice" that appears in God and the Victim (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), Zehr explains,

The church should be a place of refuge, but often we have not known how to listen, how to be present to victims. We have told them that their anger is wrong, that they need to move on, to forgive, to forget. We have denied their right to mourn and, instead, have laid new burdens on them. All this is understandable—as part of our effort to distance ourselves from pain and vulnerability—but not at all helpful. [p. 150]

Children are not the only ones who are expected to forgive abusers. Religious institutions and communities routinely carry out the practice, a point I make in Breaking Their Will. Why? Because many of the pious believe that they are in the business of forgiving wrongdoers, even when those wrongdoers have harmed children.

Tina Anderson

The above mentioned trial, in which Cheryl testified, is a flagrant example. The case involved a defendant named Ernest Willis, who twice sexually assaulted 15-year-old Tina Anderson in 1997. As has been widely reported in the media, Anderson became pregnant from the rapes, after which Anderson's mother sought counsel with Phelps. He reported the incident to police, but he also made Anderson publicly confess her "sin" of getting pregnant to the congregation. During the same church service, Willis stood up and confessed to adultery. At the time, those sitting in the pews had no idea that the two confessions were related.

Following the double mea culpa, the teenage Anderson was virtually shunned, sent out of state to have her baby in secret. Willis was not picked up by police back then—investigators say the trail went cold since they could not locate the victim. Furthermore, since Willis had repented, he was permitted to remain a member of the church. (The case was recently reopened; this month, Willis was convicted of multiple counts of statutory and forcible rape.)

The problem of abusing forgiveness was recently highlighted in a New York Times article that reported on the Roman Catholic Church's adoption of child sexual abuse guidelines. During negotiations, one archbishop stated that he wanted the church to remove its "zero tolerance" provision that forbids abusive priests from returning to the ministry. Instead, the prelate said some priests who had abused children should be allowed to return to the ministry and serve in a limited capacity. One of his reasons had to do with the fact that the policy, as the Times reported, "contradicted the church's teachings on reconciliation and forgiveness."

As Howard Zehr notes, it's somewhat understandable that, when adults learn about child abuse, they would simply like the problem to go away. They might be worried about how reporting the abuse might reflect badly on their faith or religious organization. But, in addition, many see forgiveness as a cornerstone of religious doctrine.

Forgiveness is a tricky thing. Many adults find it to be an extremely difficult act. We can teach children about forgiveness in certain circumstances, but expecting them to forgive adults who have emotionally or physically harmed them, while failing to provide those victims with adequate support is, well, unforgivable.

Circumcision Ban: Another Perspective

With the exception of the physical punishment of children, the topic of male circumcision appears to be the most controversial parenting issue in the United States. Now that San Franciscans will be voting in November on whether to outlaw male genital cutting that is performed on minors, emotions are running high. The loudest voices among the critics are people of faith, since many Jews and Muslims believe that they are religiously mandated to circumcise their sons.

Marc Stern, associate general counsel for legal advocacy at the American Jewish Comittee, calls the proposed ban "an assault . . . on a central ritual in a recognized ancient religion." The San Francisco proposal is seen as being so iconoclastic that Evangelical Christians have joined forces with Jews and Muslims in opposing it. Even though Mormons tend to circumcise for cultural rather than religious reasons, one Mormon blogger calls the ban "unconscionable," partly because it does not offer a religious exemption. Two congressmen, one who is Jewish and one who is Muslim, are so alarmed by the San Francisco measure that they are co-sponsoring a House bill that would prevent a municipality from prohibiting circumcision for males under the age of eighteen.

Proponents point to male circumcision's medical benefits; it has been shown to reduce penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. The circumcised penis is easier to keep clean. But, as I point out in Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment, hospital surveys show that the most common reasons parents give for circumcising their sons are not religious nor medical, but cultural. Parents say they want their sons to look like their fathers and fit in with other American, circumcised lads.

Opponents of male circumcision, on the other hand, say that the recipients of the procedure should be the ones to decide whether their genitalia are left intact, noting that the procedure is painful, cannot easily be reversed, and carries risk. In Breaking Their Will, I further explain that most Americans are not aware that some of those risks can be life-threatening; some babies have died from hemorrhaging and other complications. Yes, there are some medical benefits to male circumcision, but those benefits tend to involve problems that are very rare in the U.S. I also point out that the foreskin is not a throwaway part of the body; on the contrary, it has the important role of protecting the infant's sensitive glans penis.

According to the Canadian Children's Rights Council (CCRC), "At birth, the foreskin is normally fused to the underlying glans, protecting that delicate organ and, also, the urinary meatus. As the child gets older, the foreskin very gradually loosens and becomes retractible. . . . Modern circumcision . . . forcibly detaches the protective foreskin from the glans and removes what would eventually become a third or more of the adult's total penile skin covering."

Only in extremely rare instances is male circumcision medically necessary. This explains why no major medical organization advocates for routine male circumcision. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

In Breaking Their Will, I question whether we are hypocritical in how we look upon female genital cutting. All forms of female circumcision are illegal in the U.S., even though some types of this procedure are relatively minor. In fact, one could say that one form of female circumcision—the excising of the clitoral hood—is the genital equivalent of removing the male foreskin. The AAP, which categorically opposes female genital cutting yet does not oppose male genital cutting, admits, "Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West."

What about the religious mandates? It's interesting that, among the many Jewish voices opposing the San Francisco ban, I have yet to hear one mention this critical fact: In Abraham's day, only a tiny snippet of the tip of the foreskin was removed, the minimal amount needed to mark Jews as being different from other people. "No attempt was made to loosen the foreskin prematurely, so the penis was able to develop normally," says the CCRC. It was only later that rabbis insisted that more and more—and finally all—foreskin had to be removed. On the Islamic side, it should be noted that male circumcision does not appear in the Qur'an.

All that said, I do have some qualms about the San Francisco proposal. One, in the unlikely scenario that the ban were to become law, I fear that adults would choose to perform dangerous, "back alley" circumcisions. Two, I wonder if the permissible age needs to be eighteen. This idea might not sit well with intactivists, but I think once boys reach the age of thirteen, they are old enough to decide whether to have their foreskin removed. And three, I believe this country should look at placing restrictions on all procedures that alter a child's body.

I came to this conclusion after reading the view of an opponent of the male circumcision ban. The writer cast the "slippery slope" argument by stating that, if San Francisco were to pass the measure, perhaps the next thing on the chopping block (if you'll excuse the expression) is the piercing of ears of very young children, which is practiced by numerous cultures and also carries risk. I guess the writer's argument backfired with me, because I have always been bothered by parents who pierce the ears of their infants and toddlers. Sure, babies look cute wearing earrings, but they are their ears and their bodies. Can't parents wait until the child is old enough to decide for herself whether she should have her ears pierced?

Then I got to thinking that such ear piercing falls under a certain category: that of medically unnecessary, body-altering procedures that have been—and, in some cases, continue to be—widely performed on children, even though the procedures are painful, medically risky, and often difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. Think Chinese foot binding, Christian tattooing, female genital cutting, tribal scarring, and other religiously or culturally motivated rituals and customs. And, as far as I'm concerned, you can add to that list male circumcision.

Therefore, I advocate for allowing parents to circumcise their sons but not until the child has reached the age of thirteen. And that goes for any medically unnecessary puncturing, tattooing, excising, or mutilating of the body of any person who is under the age of thirteen, regardless of whether the procedure is popular among religious or cultural groups.

Adults who alter a child's body for religious or cultural reasons often feel compelled to do so, and they tend to believe that they are doing it for the child's own good. Given how important male circumcision is to parents, let's give mothers and fathers the chance to have their sons circumcised, but let's also give those children the chance to refuse it.

A Call to Faith Leaders

Recent news from the Vatican represents a common problem among faith leaders: Simply put, religious authorities often try to appear as though they are concerned with protecting children from abuse, but, in actuality, they rarely do what is needed to make a real difference.

Case in point: On May 16, the Holy See issued a letter issuing new guidelines for bishops around the world. The letter tells bishops to comply with local reporting laws and to forward cases of child sexual abuse to Vatican officials, so they can assess sanctions for abusive priests. The letter also states that the "ecclesiastical authority should commit itself to offering spiritual and psychological assistance to the victims."

At the outset, the guidelines seem like a big step forward. "The letter was the latest indication that Pope Benedict XVI has recognized sexual abuse as a global scourge, not an American aberration," reports the Los Angeles Times. But, in reality, the pope's letter only affirms that the world's most powerful religious leader is again falling short in his duties to keep children safe.

The letter misses the boat in a number of ways. For example, it does not unconditionally require all allegations of child abuse to be reported to local authorities, so church officials can continue to take advantage of the "confession" legal loophole.

Particularly troublesome is the Vatican's failure to impose sanctions for bishops who fail to comply with the guidelines. We have seen how this resistance to holding church officials accountable has played out in the U.S. Earlier this year, a grand jury accused the Archdiocese of Philadelphia of covering up child sexual abuse cases that involved at least 37 priests who were subject to "substantial evidence of abuse."

David Clohessy of S.N.A.P.

"No threat of penalty will deter a child molester from committing a child sex crime," David Clohessy, executive director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), told Time magazine. "But penalties can deter bishops from ignoring or concealing those crimes."

Critics like Clohessy say the Catholic Church is more concerned with its public image than with the spiritual needs of the community. Indeed, the Vatican's document stresses that abusive clerics should not be returned to public ministry, not only to keep minors safe, but also because this might be "a cause of scandal for the community."

Given that we cannot look to the pope as a role model for eradicating child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, I have turned to other religious leaders to learn about the role of faith leader as child protector. Last week, I attended the Global Summit on Ending Corporal Punishment and Promoting Positive Discipline and had the chance to meet Rev. Dr. Anne M. Cameron, Pastor of the Lake Highlands Presbyterian Church in Dallas. Later, we corresponded by email.

Pastor Anne Cameron of Lake Highlands Church

Cameron says that religious authorities not only have a civic duty but a "faith-life duty to be advocates for vulnerable persons, which, of course, includes all children and youth." Cameron believes that this duty requires faith leaders to be well informed about child abuse prevention everywhere and ensuring that their faith communities have a comprehensive, effective child protection policy. Cameron continues:

Families are under enormous stress in our society and people are sometimes more likely to turn to faith leaders than to other authorities for guidance and help. We must hold this trust responsibly, by being as informed as possible, but also aware of the limits of our own knowledge and expertise. Every leader of a congregation should have a network of well vetted professionals upon whom she or he can call for information or referral if necessary.

Cameron also sees the need for faith leaders to "speak out against the exploitation of children, and this includes our duty to report suspected child abuse, neglect, or maltreatment to the proper authorities. Faith leaders are never exempt from this duty to report, which supersedes the confidentiality of the pastoral relationship."

In my book, Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment, I mention a number of examples in which religious leaders are speaking out publicly against child abuse, especially that which is perpetrated by religious authorities. For instance, Jewish leaders—who have been alarmed by the growing number of publicized cases involving rabbi abusers—last year declared the week of October 17–24, 2010, National Child Abuse Prevention Week.

Some faith leaders are bringing awareness to the issue of children's rights. For example, religious authorities are urging the United States to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Currently, the U.S. remains one of only two UN countries that have failed to ratify the treaty. (The other is Somalia which has vowed to ratify the convention despite the fact that it has no functioning government.) Along the same lines, in 2005, the 32nd Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Yemen drafted the Covenant on the Rights of the Child in Islam.

Raffi Cavoulian of the Centre for Child Honouring

Members of the public are urging faith leaders to step up to the plate. Raffi Cavoukian, founder of the Centre for Child Honouring on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, and who delivered the keynote address at the Global Summit, has developed two online documents that individuals can digitally "sign." The first is a Plea to Faith Leaders in which signatories encourage religious leaders to bring "an end to all forms of maltreatment of children." The second document, a Proclamation by Religious and Spiritual Leaders in Honour of Children, is signed by religious leaders who pledge their commitment to the cause.

Raffi (he prefers to be known by his first name) agrees with Pastor Anne Cameron's position that the focus on faith leaders is critical to improving children's lives. "Religious and spiritual leaders have a great opportunity to positively influence those who look up to them," he says.

So far, the "plea" has gained nearly 1,500 signatures and 155 faith leaders from 24 countries have signed the "proclamation." Raffi hopes to increase the number of signatories "to spread the word to faith congregations that we can strive toward a new religious moment in which the faith traditions of the world see the child as the whole person that she is, with dignity and wonder and being worthy of respect. The moment has come."

In fact, Raffi says, with enough signatures, his center could "petition the pope and other religious leaders to come up with a joint declaration upholding the sanctity of the child."

We can only hope.