Janet Heimlich's Blog, page 6

What Price Religious "Freedom"?

The state of Oregon stands poised to end a dangerous practice. If a bill that has passed both the House and Senate becomes law, parents who allow their sick children to die after refusing them medical care on religious grounds would no longer be granted prosecutorial immunity. Passing this bill sends an important message: Parents who harm their children for religious reasons should be punished just as severely as parents who harm their children when religion is not a factor.

Unfortunately, however, legislators and the courts still frequently maintain a double standard when it comes to deciding the fates of abusive and neglectful parents, depending on whether harm is perpetrated in the name of faith. For example, if a woman neglects to feed her child because she is strung out on drugs, she will likely be prosecuted. But if that denial happens as part of a religious fast, the law usually has no problem with it.

In applying this double standard, proponents often say that that it is necessary to protect religious liberty. I, myself, am a big believer in religious freedom. No one should be told what, or what not, to believe. What's more, people should never be prohibited from carrying out religious rituals that aren't hurting anybody. But, as I note in my book Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment (p. 35),

There are times when the teaching and practice of religion crosses a line that should not be crossed—a line that the United States Supreme Court drew back in 1944. In Prince v. Massachusetts, the Court states, "The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community or child . . . to ill health or death.

In one religious child maltreatment case, a mother apparently ignored that directive. On May 23, 2011, Yenitza Colichon, 33, pleaded guilty in a Pennsylvania court to cruelty and neglect of a child after she made her 7-year-old daughter participate in terrifying, bloody rituals. Those rituals—said to be part of the Palo Mayombe religion which originated in Africa—included the decapitation of a goat and the sacrifice of a chicken, after which the girl was fed its heart. The child also had a religious symbol scratched into her skin.

Was this mother crazy? No, just religious. According to prosecutors, Colichon wanted her daughter to undergo the rites as a way to protect her. Colichon was about to attend Army basic training and apparently believed that, by having the girl go through the rituals, she would be initiated into the woman's faith and, therefore, be kept safe. What's more, Colichon did not act alone; she engaged a Palo Mayombe couple to actually perform the rites. (The couple was put on probation for one year.)

After the rites were performed, the girl reportedly told a teacher she was having nightmares and did not feel she could talk to her mother about it. The state Division of Youth and Family Services was called in after which investigators searched the home where the rituals had taken place. There, they found dolls, a shrine, religious statues, bones, machetes, and bundles of sticks bearing numbers and names. Some of the items had blood and animal hair on them.

But here is a particularly chilling aspect of this case: Colichon's lawyer tried to convince a judge that Colichon had a legal right to have her daughter participate in the rituals since they were part of the woman's religion. According to NorthJersey.com,

Attorney Joseph Manzo of Rockaway unsuccessfully argued before Portelli during a pre-trial motion in January to dismiss child-endangerment charges against Colichon because her freedom of religion protects her from prosecution. Manzo argued that other religious rituals — such as Jewish circumcision — might be considered unsafe, bloody or gruesome, yet are not subject to prosecution. The initiation ritual at issue is as necessary to the faith as a Catholic baptism, he said.

Putting forth this argument, Colichon's attorney seemed to be saying that, since other adults in other religions are allowed to harm their children, Colichon should also be allowed that "right." But while the judge didn't buy Manzo's argument, other cases have turned out much differently. For instance,

As the attorney indicated, male infants and boys the world over are genitally cut for religious reasons. (In Breaking Their Will, I explain that the procedure is painful, potentially dangerous, and almost always medically unnecessary.)
Based on a 1972 Supreme Court ruling, the Amish are permitted to take their children out of school after the eighth grade, based on the claim that schooling interferes with Amish religious practices and beliefs. Never mind that teenagers who leave the faith struggle to make it on their own without a high school diploma.
We keep hearing about cases in which religious authorities neglect the needs of sexual abuse victims by failing to report those crimes, because they heard about the abuses during "confession."
While Oregon is set to change its ways, some states still grant prosecutorial immunity to most parents who allow their children to die from medical neglect, if that denial is motivated by religious belief.

Is religious freedom in such peril that we must protect it at all costs? Are we teetering on such a slippery slope in the fight for religious liberty, that we must accept child abuse and neglect as unavoidable collateral damage? Or, have incidents of religious child maltreatment, such as the ritual abuse case in Pennsylvania, made "freedom" a dirty word, as Huffington Post columnist Frank Schaeffer opines?

What price religious "freedom"? Terror. Educational neglect. Ritual abuse. Death. The list goes on.

How "End Times" Beliefs Harm Children

I am one of the many people who chuckled at news stories about Harold Camping's prediction that the world was going to end on May 21st. I heard about the rapture parties and the planned celebratory post-rapture looting. And I, like so many others, found myself often shaking my head, wondering how could so many Americans buy into a nonsensical idea.

But I have noticed something else that is not a laughing matter: how the actions of certain rapture-seized parents have harmed their children.

Think about it. How many news stories have you heard where people said they were convinced that they no longer needed earthly goods, and so they gave away everything they owned? In an NPR News story, Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports how Harold Camping's predictions have inspired people to quit their jobs and leave their families. As one 27-year-old mother told NPR, "Knowing the date of the end of the world changes all your future plans."

That mother, Adrienne Martinez, went on to say that, based on her belief about the impending rapture, she canceled plans to go to medical school. Instead, she and her husband quit their jobs and moved from New York City to Orlando to devote their lives to worshiping, proselytizing, and spending time with their two-year-old daughter. The couple is expecting another child next month, whom one can assume the Martinez's believed would be born in heaven.

"My mentality was, why are we going to work for more money? It just seemed kind of greedy to me. And unnecessary," Martinez told NPR. Her husband added, "God just made it possible—he opened doors. He allowed us to quit our jobs, and we just moved, and here we are." Said his wife, "We budgeted everything so that, on May 21, we won't have anything left."

Now that the prophesy has failed to come true, what is to become of this family and the countless others who also bet away their futures? In this economy, we can only assume that they will have a difficult, long read ahead, as they try to rebuild their lives. But, of most importance to me, how will the choice to risk flinging a family into a state of poverty affect their children? Furthermore, how will those children be affected, as their parents potentially suffer with psychological trauma, trying to come to grips with the realization that their high-stakes belief is untrue?

Two other children will suffer in even more extreme ways.

On Friday evening, a southern California mother allegedly slit her daughters throats and wrists and then her own to avoid what she believed was the coming "tribulation."  Lyn Benedetto, 47, reportedly used a box cutter and paring knife to kill her 11- and 14-year old daughters and then herself. Thankfully, the three survived. The daughters were released to child protective services and their mother was taken to jail.

We can wonder what kind of mental health syndromes or problems plague parents who jeopardize their children's lives based on religious beliefs. We can blame Harold Camping and some media outlets for propagating a potentially harmful idea. But, as I point out in my book Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment, perhaps it's also important to step back and question all religious ideas that are generated by, and spread, fear.

Some religious ideas sound ludicrous and even make us laugh. But, given humans' propensity for believing just about anything, we should also consider that certain religious beliefs can lead to child abuse and neglect.

Do Orthodox Jews Hold Children in High Esteem?

One woman recently asked me this question:

You say that the abuse [against children] cuts across all religions. However, in Judaism, even in extreme sects like Hassidism, children are viewed as "gifts from God" and children are elevated to a very high status; family life really revolves around them and their needs and education. Because the religious culture lacks the more traditional authoritarian hierarchy, I wonder if violence is, nonetheless, a problem within these (strict orthodox/hassidic) families? What about sexual abuse? Is this also a greater problem within [these] religious sects than in the general population?

Most people of faith, and those of no faith, commonly talk about children in glowing terms. Jews, in particular, often express the view that children are important people in our society. For example, some have pointed out to me that children learning to perform mitzvot [good deeds] can give young people a feeling of empowerment.

However, it is one thing to speak of children as being "gifts of God" and another thing to treat them as such. More and more critics are bringing to light the fact that more conservative Jewish communities are failing to protect children of physical abuse and sexual abuse.

I asked one woman who would like to be known as "an Orthodox Jewish mother of a number of children" to comment on the question posed above. As she writes to me in an email, the view that children are "gifts from God" is "the ideal that is expressed in our Torah, but in practice, very sadly, we have gone off the derech [path]. There is way too much sexual abuse going on in ultra-Orthodox and Chasidic communities, and it has been covered up for far too long. In addition, the ultra-Orthodox and Chasidic children are predominantly not even yet educated about their own basic personal safety, so that they will know how to protect themselves from predators in their midst."

The woman also pointed out that, like most sexual abusers, "The perpetrators are most commonly their older close relatives or neighbors—often yeshiva bochurim [fellow students]—close relatives or neighbors, as well as frum [Jewish] community members involved with working with youth."

As I discuss in my book Breaking Their Will, problems of child maltreatment in yeshivas [Jewish schools] have been largely ignored. One man I interviewed for the book, Joel Engelman, is one of a number of boys who has accused the principal of the yeshiva of his youth of molesting him. Engelman, aged twenty-six, notes in an email that the concept that children are "gifts from God" is "thrown around" in Judaism, as well as in other faiths.

But what does that mean? Does it mean that children are protected from child abuse? It is obvious to me that this is not the case, as the rabbis who beat me on a regular basis would use that against us, and say, "This is why I'm beating you every day, because you are so special and pure in the eyes of God, that you especially need your soul cleansed of impure thoughts and wrong actions." So in effect an abuser in a religious environment can easily pervert this concept to fill their abusive desires.

And what about parents? Engelman asks. "Do parents protect their children because their kids are 'gifts from God'? All indicators in the orthodox community seem to be saying NO. The rabbi who sexually abused me as a child is still teaching children every day, despite very public accusations from several victims, and this scenario is sadly, not uncommon at all."

What explains this insensitivity? Asher Lipner, who practices as a clinical psychologist treating abuse victims in the Chassidic community, writes in an email to me that the reasons stem partly from the past: "Being a small and historically persecuted group, there is a tendency of an 'us vs. them' mentality." Lipner goes on to explain that this attitude sometimes "breeds mistrust in outside help from mental health professionals and law enforcement, probably the two most important tools in fighting child abuse."

I bring a sociological perspective in Breaking Their Will, as child maltreatment is most likely to occur in faith communities that are authoritarian. Many people do not perceive Jewish cultures are less authoritarian than other faith cultures. For one, most Americans are more familiar with Reform or Conservative Judaism rather than, say, "ultra-Orthodox." And two, rabbis are not considered to hold divine power, as is the case with other religious leaders.

But many who have grown up, or currently live, in Orthodox Jewish communities believe that outsiders know little about what actually goes on inside. For example, as I point out in Breaking Their Will, many might be surprised to learn rabbis who are administrators and teachers in Orthodox Jewish yeshivas often hold great power socially both within those facilities and throughout the community.

"The communal and religious structure [of Orthodox Jewish communities] is undeniably super authoritarian," writes Engelman in his email. The Jewish mother concurs: "The ultra-Orthodox and Chasidic communities have a very traditional authoritarian heirarchy in place. Adherents to these ways need to take back individual responsibility. We need to do all we can to help change the current situation, so that in practice, our ways can be in line with the guidelines found in our Torah."

What Is Religious Child Maltreatment?

When I began writing my book, Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment, the term religious child maltreatment did not exist. At least, Google had never heard of it. I found its absence indicative of just how little had been said about religion's potential to harm children.

Very few books looked at this problem in a comprehensive way. I learned, too, that the topic makes many people uncomfortable, even defensive.

It's not news that religion in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Religious wars continue to be waged around the globe. Yet, many have a hard time believing that religious faith can also lead to child abuse and neglect. In fact, the worst perpetrators tend to be those who ,. amaim to be perfectly pious. Sure, other factors frequently also come into play, such as poverty and mental illness. Still, isn't it time we began asking whether religious belief should, too, be considered a risk factor for abuse and neglect?

Neither Breaking Their Will nor Religiouschildmaltreatment.com is a diatribe against all faith or any particular religion. Rather, they stand to deliver a message—perhaps a warning—that certain religious cultures in America pose a particularly big risk to the health and safety of society's youngest members. Specifically, I am talking about religious authoritarian communities, which I identify as those that possess three perfect-storm characteristics: 1) The social structure is strictly hierarchical; 2) members subscribe to, and are led to believe in, fear-based ideas; and 2) the culture is socially separatist.

Raising awareness of the issue of religious child maltreatment is just the first step toward eradicating the problem. As psychology researcher Bette L. Bottoms notes in a University of Illinois at Chicago study, "If religion-related child abuse is not acknowledged now as a problem by our society, it will be our legacy to the future."

What is religious child maltreatment?

When I began writing my book, Breaking Their Will, the term religious child maltreatment did not exist. At least, Google had never heard of it. I found its absence indicative of just how little had been said about religion's potential to harm children.

Very few books looked at this problem in a comprehensive way. I learned, too, that the topic makes many people uncomfortable, even defensive.

It's not news that religion in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Religious wars continue to be waged around the globe. Yet, many have a hard time believing that religious faith can also lead to child abuse and neglect. In fact, the worst perpetrators tend to be those who aim to be perfectly pious. Sure, other factors frequently also come into play, such as poverty and mental illness. Still, isn't it time we began asking whether religious belief should, too, be considered a risk factor for abuse and neglect?

Religiouschildmaltreatment.com is not a diatribe against all faith or any particular religion. Rather, it stands to deliver a warning that certain religious cultures in America (specifically, those that are authoritarian) pose a particularly big risk to the health and safety of society's youngest members.

By raising awareness of religious child maltreatment, this website aims to help in someday eradicating the problem. As psychology researcher Bette L. Bottoms notes in a University of Illinois at Chicago study, "If religion-related child abuse is not acknowledged now as a problem by our society, it will be our legacy to the future."

Bette L. Bottoms et al, "Religion-Related Child Physical Abuse: Characteristics and Psychological Outcomes," Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma 8, no. 1/2 (June 2004): 110.