Editor of American Atheist magazine claims church/christian daycare is a form of child abuse.

Read the whole post here
www.dogmadebate.com


"In short, by starting your child off in a Christian environment, you are heading them down a path of forced ignorance. At least let your child begin in a secular world, and if he or she chooses Christianity after an age of accountability, then so be it. But forcing them to learn things as fact that you don't even know to be true is a form of child abuse: inducing psychosis with thoughts of good and evil watching over them, as if they are constantly being graded and evaluated. It's bad for positive self-esteem, and slows social development later in life."

I'd like to see attitudes towards atheism change. This, unfortunately, is not the way to make that happen.

but that doesn't change the truth of what he's saying.

That's the stance you believe we should take.... I don't defend the RW XIAN loonies and their Jesus Camp indoctrination programs. However, this is an incredibly broad stroke condemnation of Christianity or religion in general and frankly quite intolerant--something I do not see as a progressive value.

But enforcing as "truths" things that are doubtful with the idea that to not believe them true risks an eternity of suffering is a form of psychological abuse. Isn't it? Not on par with physical abuse or sexual abuse, but it's not exactly benign, is it?

from indoctrination. Your intention to lump everything into an abusive indoctrination brainwashing category is the type of religious intolerance that I just can not abide and as a non-religious person myself this means you are offending far more than the extremes of fundamentalist believers.

THAT is what is causing the backlash against atheists--those in the movement that are pushing this level of INTOLERANCE.

that's a little more extreme than just an 'introduction'... IMO.

life as friends or colleagues that does that. You refer to extremes and paint all with a broad brush. Yes, some fundamental forms of Christianity push that as a belief; they are ONE extreme. I was never exposed to that type of religious believe in my "introduction" as a child as I lived in a community where mainstream moderate Christian denominations predominated. You are being very disingenuous with your stereotyping.

of child abuse?

worst that all of us would denounce. I believe that you know that.

that is not some form of, at the very least, misleading him or her to believe something is true that may not be (in fact, probably is not) true, which is putting the burden on the child to undo the damage rather forcefully inflicted, no matter how well-intended the inflicter of damage or how gently the force is applied. Take even the notion that God gave Moses the law "Thou shalt not kill." Does any religious teacher in any tradition in which Moses is part of the lore go further than that instruction? Can you trust any to, with your own child? I wouldn't. It's not part of Christian instruction to criticize the story and ask why, really, is it forbidden to kill? Why is it more important to God to have no other gods before him than it is that we not kill? Why, if god tells Moses to tell us not to kill, does he tell other heroes in the Bible to smite their enemies? Do Christian instructors as a rule raise those questions?

"at the very least, misleading him or her to believe something is true that may not be..."

Much like all human constructs, i.e., philosophies, economics, politics, etc.? Or does this only apply to imaginary thinking you yourself disagree with?

designed to keep the idea alive ("abandoning this idea will cause you to suffer eternally"), which is why they're so successful and why they're so harmful.

Or has the 'good' Christianity finally gotten rid of the idea of damnation and hell? If so, that's cause for celebration.

I didn't know that any forms of Christianity exempted nonbelievers from hell. Mea culpa.

I still think it is abusive to introduce these beliefs as anything but an option among many beliefs. I know of no one among those I have personally encountered in life who does that. Jesus is God and that's a fact - those other religions aren't discussed except as examples of 'nonbelievers'... that goes for any other religion I've encountered as well... well, save Wicca.

I am also both intellectually honest and tolerant enough to acknowledge that not all who find religious beliefs to be important in their life use those beliefs in such an abhorrent way that those of the extremes advocate. Denounce the abusers of religion. But to lump all who follow the basic (unbastardized or exploited) tenets of Buddha, or Jesus or Jainism or Islam or Hinduism--deserves that broad-brushed excoriation and to be accused of child abuse because of their beliefs.

It is sad that it has been turned into one.

As for the rest of what you said - I didn't lump anything together in the post you replied to.

All I said was that IMO it is abusive to introduce these beliefs as anything but an option among many beliefs.

But if you really think the line can be drawn between life philosophy and religion (e.g., Buddhism) I dare say this thread argues strongly against that notion.

The line between philosophy and religion is pretty clear for me, thanks.

Where is the confusion in that distinction for you?

I gather that distinction is NOT all that clear for you.

"Which is what most of us are saying...
But if you really think the line can be drawn between life philosophy and religion (e.g., Buddhism) I dare say this thread argues strongly against that notion. "

Again - what is "what most of us are saying"?


Let me see if I can work out what you're trying to say ... are you saying that 'following tenets' is ok and doesn't involve telling kids that this is the One True Religion and all others are false?

there is no "Separation" between State and philosophy --

there is one between State and Church --

because when someone wants to march around proclaiming that they have the one

true way -- the one true male only god -- that's a danger to democracy.

I honestly don't know where to begin, when you suggest that I or anyone on this thread is arguing against strict separation between Church and State!!!

I guess that is the natural outcome of folks that come to a post late. They read one post or two and draw some incredible conclusions as to what is being said and who is saying it. ALL I can say is WTF? :shrug:

The thread regards some extremist writings that suggests that all forms of Christianity and any introduction to it (including in religious-run child care centers) equates to child abuse. That is what is being discussed. I, as a tolerant, yet non-religious progressive resent the suggestion that even introducing a child to a parent's religious beliefs equates to child abuse. I also strongly argue against those who would conflate mainstream non-fundamentalist denominations that are founded on the tenets of Christianity with those extremists who purport to (including the fire and brimstone or extreme misogynistic/homophobic hate-preaching exploiters that exist among the far right-dominated churches as well as the Fred Phelps types). That is just wrong.

I said the Founders understood the threat of CHURCH to democracy --

but that they did NOT find a similar threat from PHILOSPHY --!!

And it was in response to this comment by you . . .

But if you really think the line can be drawn between life philosophy and religion (e.g., Buddhism) I dare say this thread argues strongly against that notion.


which seems to suggest that you find little difference beteen philosophy and religion?


And, you're further mistaken - I do actually read threads and comments -- as many as I can ...

right down the line.

All JC wanted was to reform Judaism. The 'messiah' bullshit was tacked on later.

but didn't he (allegedly) say stuff like 'the only way to god is through me' and 'this is my flesh' and all that stuff?

'Through me' could mean 'by doing what I do,' but Christians interpret it as 'I am the gatekeeper for the One True God,' which is very much a no-no for a Jew. It's a stoning offense. (Which makes the blood libel double hilarious - the Jews did not use crucifixion, that was a Roman Empire thing.)

As for 'this is my flesh,' that comes from a tradition of ritual cannibalism shared by many cultures that were around back then. The Nicean Council probably tacked that on in an effort to convert pagans, like they did with many aspects of Christianity.

in a really unpleasant kind of way -- !! And it sounds right!

:)

And, how quickly they disposed of "Lilith" - Adam's first wife!

And talk about demonizing someone!!

are direct quotes from Jesus!

Yet, the Bible is always presented as "the word of god."

Ah -- yes -- God/Jesus spoke to middle men whose writings they "inspired."

:)

Actually, I think the writing is poor -- and some have suggested they should have

gotten Shakespeare to write it for them!

Personally, I think the messiah stuff preceded the other stuff. Jesus's very name means messiah. That he's sent from God to reform the world order is utterly central to the Christian mythos. The stuff about him being a reform rabbi or revolutionary all starts appearing around the Enlightenment, when revolution and reformation were hot in Europe's air. But there's good reason to believe that that part of the story, where the reform rabbi stuff comes from, was built onto the bare bones myth of the Messiah figure, to make it fit Biblical "prophecy."

Yeshua bin Yusuf couldn't have been, because the Roman Empire not only did not fall for another few centuries, its army destroyed the Temple.

Jews for Jesus literature notwithstanding.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You don't have to buy the historic Jesus if you're not Xian. Unfortunately it's rather difficult to lose even that faith (that jesus was a real person) once it has its grips in you. Some of those least willing to give that notion up are self-described atheists who love the idea of the radical rabbi that they cab see but that xians can't because of the film of dogma over their eyes.

I repeat: nonchristians are under no obligation whatsoever to buy the Christian version of history, even if they tailor it to their tastes.

Thought you were playing some "gotcha" game, and mocked accordingly.

FWIW, I think the legend was based on (probably more than one) real guy. That's my opinion, doesn't make me a Christian or an atheist - I am neither, and resent any implications otherwise.

And I did not at ALL assume you were Christian.

;-)

It was very influential on my current thinking about Christianity and religion. A mind opener!

but the Bible -- Old Testament -- was written to cement patriarchy --

Otherwise, everything before that was simply oral story telling to tansmit

ideas.

I am responding to an adult DUER who is debating with me on that thread from much earlier in the day, which you are taking out of context to add some self-serving sanctimonious point. Start by reading my response to your last totally out of context post #156. I honestly don't know if you are doing this intentionally, but it is just disingenuous . :eyes:

Here's the post I responded to ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=252681&mesg_id=252697

Your first line is . . . "You are free to believe or not" . . .

And, I redirected your thinking -- I thought -- back to the original premise of this

thread -- which is that children are usually NOT given a CHOICE as to whether or not

to be inducted into a religion.

It's a relevant observation on the thread and your comment --

respond to it or not -- whatever.

and historically, RCC has not been considered Fundamentalist . . but they

are moving towards Evangelicalism -- this Pope is committed to that.

HELL is an invention of organized patriarchal religion -- there is no HELL in

the older religions --

Had a baby sitter for a little while -- a young girl from family across the street --

had a Protestant upbringing and took it upon herself to tell my children that "god"

was everywhere -- including in the shutters! Knew everything they did and watching

them all the time.

Who was it who ever said ... "Religion is good for mental health"?

...on faith?

NGU.

EVER told her she would burn in Hell.

Where did you get the idea that this sort of thing happens outside of fundie hell-fire and brimstone churches?

You know about how Jesus loves them and what a cool guy Jesus was. They mostly learn their alphabet and how to go potty, though (it's preschoolers).

:puke: <==admittedly, just a personal reaction. I won't go so far as to call having to learn that insipid song and sing it over and over torture, but it borders on it.

Personally, I could not abide having my daughter learn that Jesus was an actual guy. The juries out on that question. Then again, I didn't have the heart to fool my daughter into believing in Santa Claus either.

Most churches are like cults of varying degrees. And the more fundamentalist a church is the more cult-like it is. I'd like to see a world free of all religion because it would be one less thing that divides people and causes them to kill each other. Fundamentalist Christians in the US supported Bush's wars because, after all, our military was just going to be killing 'lowly' Muslims. A lot of fundamentalists looked at Bush's wars as 'holy' wars. Republicans always exploit the most ignorant christians in the country to go along with their evil, and they eagerly follow. That is not healthy for them, or our country. And look around at what is happening right now. So-called right wing christians want to pass laws to invade people's bedrooms and tell them what they can or can't do sexually. And the idiot 'christian' conservative running for Senate in Arizona believes if your child is raped or is the victim of incest that they should be forced to carry the fetus to full term. I just don't understand that level of soullessness and hatred. I truly believe no one can be a conservative and a practicing 'christian' at the same time. They are exact opposites.

If christian conservatives had their way we would have a theocracy and our current laws would be replaced with barbaric biblical ones. Look at how oppressed people, especially women, are treated in religious dominated societies. And that is the direction right wingers want to take our country. I sure hope we can succeed in winning against these forces of evil. If we don't our country is doomed.

and by example or instruction much of it teaches distrust of women and female

inferiority!

Jesus loves me! this I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong;
they are weak but He is strong.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

Jesus loves me! loves me still,
'tho I'm very weak and ill,
that I might from sin be free,
bled and died upon the tree.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

Jesus loves me! He who died
heaven's gate to open wide;
He will wash away my sin,
let His little child come in.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

Jesus loves me! He will stay
close beside me all the way.
Thou hast bled and died for me,
I will henceforth live for Thee.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

Jesus loves me when I'm good.
When I do the things I should.
Jesus loves me when I'm bad,
but it makes him oh so sad.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.


I wouldn't have MY kids sing this ditty.
Even though I was subjected to it.

casually introduce their religion (or nonreligion) to their children, in such a a way as to make clear that it's their own beliefs/nonbeliefs and not necessarily a pipeline to the truth? (Nonbelievers are much more likely to make that clear, because of the nature of nonbelief.)

I don't have religious extremists among my circle of friends. I wasn't raised that way and nor were any in my extended family.

You appear to have some lingering animosities that drive your attitudes on this score. Not everyone who has a passing religious exposure or who acknowledges some religious influence in their life (no matter how minimal or boringly "white bread" in its nature) is out to bludgeon the rest of the world with religious teachings.

BurtWorm. You seem to be personally trapped by your reaction to all discussion of religion. I don't seek out these kind of threads, but will post occasionally when I see them on the "latest" page. Can you, likewise ignore them?

I hath sinned in seeking out these threads, brother!

:eyes:

Have a nice day, BW

:hi:

that only Catholics can save their souls -- reach heaven!

How many "missionaries" does the Mormon Church send out every year?

What do you think that's all about . . . ???

Let me emphasize that we all have the right to question and challenge religion --

and this is a debate forum -- a town square. If you can't tolerate seeing religion

question and challenged ... what's your purpose in posting on this thread?

of whether to will be exposed to religious instruction or not?

And, really, this isn't about individuals -- it's about hierarchies --

and the Vatican, for one, is certainly out to convert the world --

Mormons, as well.

In fact, haven't missionaries been "blundgeoning" the rest of the world with their

teachings for thousands of years? In Crusades, Inquisitions -- and from Hawaii to

this continent? "Introducing the Cross with the Sword" is a well known tool of imperialism.

Certainly organized patriarchal religion has always worked to stamp out any "heresy" . . .

too often with violence.

And from the attacks on simply atheist billboards we can see that that turn of mind --

towards violence -- hasn't actually been curtailed.

I'd certainly call teaching 7 year olds -- and occasionally younger children -- about the

crucifixion, in detail, child abuse and indoctrination.

They aren't offering this information to children and giving them a chance to challenge or

question it or make up their own minds --

And, of course, we know that patriarchal religion isn't interested in letting children

themselves decide whether or not to join a church at age 18 -- CHOICE?

Children are a captured and compliant audience for those teaching "dogma" --

and sadly they are put there by their parents.

not to mention full details on lives of martyrs!!

It shows up in this forum with some frequency

"Piss off Christians."

NGU.

Sid

you can bet your ass I'm going to have trouble finding a fuck to give when something an atheist says pisses them off.

"my very existence pisses off Christians,"

What are you wearing when this happens?

A T shirt?- "I'm going to have trouble finding a fuck..."

Maybe it's something else?

Sounds like horrid circumstances...you have my sympathy.

;-)

taking kids when they are very young and brainwashing them --

and this happens before any child has the opportunity to know their own mind --

to form their own conscience --

Yes -- I agree, it's child abuse --

That's long been recognized.

Funny, given how many agnostic or atheist friends I have that managed not to be brainwashed, despite an introduction to religion as a child. :shrug:

and/or "one all male god" . . . ?

That's an abusive concept right there!

Your personal examples, of course, ignore the directions that religious hierarchies take --

but if you want to speak of "friends" and individuals . . . of course, many do leave

religions, even early on, rejecting them and essentially becoming agnostic or atheist.

That doesn't mean that the goal of organized patriarchal religion isn't to convernt non-

believers or to instill in very young children their religious beliefs.

As a non-religious person myself, I will not be drawn into your disingenuous attempt to paint me as your foil in your war against all religions, all who might subscribe to any religious tenets or anything else. Move along. I'm done with you.

because you have no debate to compete with the challenges being offered here --

I'll be happy to put you on ignore --

as an atheist is child abuse. this guy does no one any favors.

they are being taught to live a fantasy

Just as Christians hate it when people like Fred Phelps flap their gums, I hate it when atheists say thing like this.

It's tying a child's arms behind her back to tell her she has to behave this way and think this or she'll burn in hell for eternity.

via faith," it was very much like telling mythological tales to pass on larger truths. I think that's possible to do, and it's not abuse. It's not necessary, IMO, but it's not abuse.

One need not believe the stories were literally true to get a basic message and one that is as appropriate in a secular domain as it is for the religious. I remember loving the receipt of a colorful child's bible with bright pictures... Once one sets aside the excesses of what claim to be religious but are far more fitting of hateful cults (e.g., the most extreme of what passes for religion, like the Fred Phelps clan), there is a tremendous spectrum. It really pains me to see this hateful attitude that some take towards any and all aspects of religion. As progressives, I feel that we should expose our children to many ideas, while being very truthful as to why we choose to believe what we do and to follow the philosophy (political, life experience or religious) that we do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

what exactly it is that drives your simmering animosity on this score. Really... it sometimes seems an obsession with you. :shrug:

It could have been the number of constipated people who went to that church, but that smell was thick in the air. I'm not making it up.

You have an axe to grind, for sure.

;-)

:hug:

Maybe the wrong smiley for a flatulent post, but it's got to escape somehow!;)

Crusades

Inquisition

Burning of witches

Almost all wars

Violence against gays and lesbians

Denouncing and demonizing science

Denouncing demonizing medical advances

Assassination of abortion providers

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Seems that 'simmering animosity' is a quite mild reaction against this kind of institutionalized brutality.

Maybe you should 'admit even to yourself' that your knee-jerk defense of Christianity needs some examining.

Buh-bye.

I don't respond to posters that accuse those who disagree with them of every wrong ever committed in the world. As a non-religious person advocating tolerance for those well within the extremes of religion, your post directed at me is especially hard to fathom. It isn't debate, it is just engaging in obnoxious behavior. You'll get no further response from me.

that "god" had told him to attack Afghanistan --

and later, to attack Iraq!

As whacky as all of that was, never heard of a laugh track being played after

this news!

But we really do need to laugh at stuff like that more often!!

I don't know of any Christian church that teaches that it's okay to not believe what they say. I also don't know of any Christian religion that doesn't teach children they will burn in hell if they don't believe what they're force fed.

is being in my house by myself at 5 years old, balling my eyes out because I didn't want to go to Hell, and my little 5 year old imagination had gotten the best of me and I got scared. Mom came in (she was just outside), and she asked what I was crying about... I told her, and she never made me go to church again.

:applause:

Any churches you know waiting until a child is 18?

to children at a very young age --

Do you know any that wait until a child is 18 to give them the CHOICE?

:shrug:

NGU.

This seems like a pretty broad brush condemnation of all Christian environments. Some might be extreme but unless it's really coersive and dogmatic I wouldn't call it child abuse.

After all, forcing them to learn things as fact that you don't even know to be true is a form of child abuse.

:shrug:

NGU.

Can you confirm that there are billions of suns out there for sure?

I deliberately avoided using evolution as an example because I feared someone's knee would jerk.

NGU.

Why, yes. Yes we can do exactly that.

Or are you trusting the astronomers?

For an even better example, see my post below.

NGU.

If you don't believe that there are actually billions of stars in the Milky Way, it probably would be easy to find an astronomer willing to prove it to you. It's standard scientific practice to make experimental data available, since experiments have to be repeatable.

Whether laypersons can understand scientific data is another question. I'm sure my friends who majored in chemistry could show me all kinds of lab data that I would be unable to comprehend. But there are millions of images of the sky that you could look at if you were actually interested in the number of stars out there.

Evolution is an area where the evidence is sometimes not understood by laypersons. But we are no less sure about the truth of evolution than we are about the number of stars in the Milky Way. The evidence is less straightforward, but it is no less abundant and no more equivocal.

Just like there is a large amount of corroborating physical evidence for evolution.

Having "been out there yourself" is not the only way to prove that something exists. I've never been to Ireland, but I'm reasonably sure it's there.

There is, however, NO corroborating physical evidence for, say, the Biblical Account of creation. Which doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to teach it, or whatever else they want, to their kids. But you're trying to draw an equivalency between shit that is utterly incomparable in terms of factual, evidentiary basis.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A claim from this article: But forcing them to learn things as fact that you don't even know to be true is a form of child abuse: inducing psychosis

I'm not sure what David Smalley's credentials as a mental health professional are. Here's a counter-claim by a professor of psychology:



I don't know where the truth lies; but humans have been practicing religion for 50,000 years (maybe more). Smalley's claim needs some backing before it can be taken seriously.

its general notions and practices are not obviously contradicted by evidence,
Except that they are, quite frequently, and this contradiction has happened again and again throughout history with regard to religious claims about the physical world.

it requires very little mental effort to sustain most religious notions,
Only if you never study astrophysics, biochemistry, or other forms of hard science, which show that there is absolutely no need for a god-like being, putting theistic religious notions to the test and forcing cognitive dissonance on quite a few "Christian scientists."

it encourages community integration which promotes healthy psychological functioning.
Only with a community of like-minded people. "Be ye not unequally yoked."

Indeed, most empirical studies confirm that religious people tend to be happier and healthier, as well as financially, socially, and interpersonally more successful than their non-religious counterparts -- wholly inconsistent with the religion-as-delusion theory.

Well, I hate to say, but deluded people WILL be happier than those who cannot ignore harsh realities. And it comes as no surprise to me that believers are more socially accepted and more financially successful, as they make up the current majority and they tend to exclude people who disagree with them.

Your counter-claim is a load of shit.

keep in mind, organized patriarchal religion -- the Vatican, at least --

has certainly gone to almost legalistic lengths to gain control over their

members' most private actions -- human sexuality and reproduction!

Many people have observed that some of the pedophile priests seem to have

arrested development -- behaving like 14 year old boys rather than adults.

Have you never heard the expression "mental clitorectomy" in connection with Catholic

teachings?

...and the Easter Bunny? After all, he calls Christianity "things that you don't even know to be true." Whereas the fat man and the rabbit are deliberate lies. And I've seen how the revelation can hurt a child.

Yet, even this doesn't lead to psychosis.

What a hack.

NGU.

Not quite the same, is it?

...but s/he sure understands not getting toys or candy.

NGU.

I'm sure that my experience as a kid was typical.

I never bought the Santa Claus story, but I sure understood the consequences of hell at a young age. Though, deep down, the biblical stories didn't seem like reality at any age either.

I remember being in constant stress about frying in hell for not being able to really believe the biblical stories. And that is child abuse. When, at the age of 15, I figured out that religion is total BS there was a huge weight lifted off of me.

What a terrible waste of my valuable time was church. Growing up with only one day weekends, and stressing about hell.

I know my brother had a similar experience. My sister went through some of this, but somehow she was able to convince herself that this total nonsense is true.

Even the pastor's kids got to go home before me - even on Christmas. That was my experience too. Welcome to DU, cpwm17. :hi:

You make an excellent case. And the church we left was a fairly standard "mainstream" church--not a loonie fundamentalist bin. Democrats, liberals and college professors went there. But the message inherent in Lutheranism (the denomination I'm talking about) came through loud and clear to a little kid. Sin and you're damned to hell for all eternity.

the worst of course are the experiences of children in orphanages -- some labeled

"mentally retarded" -- and young girls whose lives were completely altered because

they were labeled "promiscuous" in some way and sent to "Madgalain Laundries" to work

for free for the church. Some of the many children who were abused by priests have

come forward -- most have suffered from these experiences all their lives.

Some of us have spoken of the craziness of the Catholic schools - and the nuns.

But, in general, Catholics haven't really spoken out about just the general unpleasantness

of the experiences as a young child being trained in Catholicism -- especially inside

a Catholic school.

Needs to happen --

And I speak as a recovering Catholic --

It's like a national waking up from a horrible decades long nightmare.

Your points about indoctrination in patriarchy are very well taken. I mean for all the good coming out of the Catholic tradition in the form of liberation theology and social justice campaigns, it's awfully hard to overlook the church's hardening on its patriarchal legacy. Unconscionable to overlook it, actually.

:toast:

I'm quite sure more intense than we're hearing because my sister

lives in Ireland now and will often mention it.

This all went on so long because the government was involved not only in

promoting the church but in protecting it --

If I understand this correctly, the government is paying financially for the damage

done to citizens -- and members of government have fallen for being involved in the

coverups . . . /???


Your points about indoctrination in patriarchy are very well taken. I mean for all the good coming out of the Catholic tradition in the form of liberation theology and social justice campaigns, it's awfully hard to overlook the church's hardening on its patriarchal legacy. Unconscionable to overlook it, actually.

The liberal traditions of the church as it began to change were wonderful --

Liberation Theology began to change the world -- and social justice campaigns as you

mention. And of course the right wing has now banned Liberation Theology -- and this

Pope is saying he is taking the church even further to the right -- to Evangelicalism!

Their new fortunes are being found in Africa and China!

While they have pretty much given up on Europe and America and Canada --

they are still trying and I'd say George W gave them quite a hand by passing our tax dollars

along to them for their "faith-based" religious organizations. The RCC has most of those.

There was a some time ago some question of opening an investigation into whether the RCC

has used those taxpayer dollars to pay off their pedophile lawsuits.

Also many rumors that the church has hidden billions of dollars to prevent those abused

from laying claim to any of it . . . /????

An all-male nation of one mile which the United Nations recognizes and accords

influence to?

Huge wealth equal to the Queen of England's ?

Influence over our own government -- and its "faith based" religious organizations

subsidized by American taxpayers?

The ability to tell Africans NOT to use condoms though the continent is awash in AIDS?

How vile is that?

Use that gray matter !!

the start of the abuse.
They imprint on undeveloped minds the idea that if you behave in certain ways they will be rewarded with good stuff by an invisible being with supernatural powers.
Once that thought process is imprinted in the brain it is easy to get people to believ that another invisible being with super natural powers will reward them with good stuff but only after they die.

Millions deal with years of psychological trauma resulting from a Christian upbringing.

Just cause it was so damned boring :rofl::rofl:

not having felt so as a child...;)

By that measure, I could add one hell of a lot of sources of "torture" endured as a child...

After 1st communion in 2nd grade, us catholic students were compelled to go to confession every week. Confessing that I had NOT sinned since my last confession was NOT an option. So, in order to avoid a lecture from the priest that it was impossible for a child to have NOT sinned in the 7 days since my last confession (and get the hell out of the confessional), I would make up sins.

and then the right wingers in the Church rose up and destroyed it --

reversing it --

It changed the name to reconciliation, but the ritual was generally the same. It made the possibility of face-to-face possible which made it more therapy-like, but the sacrament was still there, required, and essentially the same. Sure most people still call it confession.

right wingers in the church quite quickly created an "optional" window on it to keep

it around --

and now -- though I have no recent experience with the church -- seems to have

returned as a necessity?

It's "Ask and you shall be forgiven" --

Vatican II made clear no middlemen are required --

Let me just add that immediately after Vatican II, the right wing in the church

began to demonize and propagandize against it and certainly have confused

Catholics about what it all meant.

Vatican II made the church a democracy -- gave it a compassionate and humane face --

acknowledged the right to personal conscience in all issues -- including the instructions

that Catholics use their own conscience to decide for themselves whether or not to use

birth control.

The right wing tried to suggest that this referred to the "rhythm" method which was

untrue. Rhythmn was approved by the church and wasn't in question.

Generally, Vatican II also kicked Papal infallibility in the ass --

So you are saying that it was removed as a sacrament? As a requirement of those things to be a Catholic (you have to receive reconciliation at least once a year during Lent and to wipe any mortal sin before taking communion)? I went to a pretty liberal Catholic seminary and there was never any discussion of "optional" about reconciliation during either religious formation or church history classes.

some interpretation of it --

I have a long write up on it somewhere which was published in The Humanist Magagzine

a very long time ago--

Remember when St. Patrick was a saint?

Remember when you couldn't eat meat on Friday -- and now that's back again.

Things can change quickly in the church, especially when a Pope wants things changed --

On a quick looking I found this . . .


Let me speak briefly but firmly about General Absolution. I think it was a mistake for the Church to propose and to provide it. I think that it rapidly became an abuse. I think that the regulation of the Church, saying, “Do this only in an urgent and grave necessity,” is often ignored. I know that to spend three hours hearing individual confessions can be tedious and tiring. But such work is also an enriching and profound mercy. St. John Vianney, the saintly Curé of Ars in France, usually spent twelve and more hours a day in his confessional. He is not the only one.


The Cure of Ars spent hours a day in the confessional


I remember when General Absolution was first permitted and done and talked about. It was the early 1970s. I took part in the ceremony with other priests in maybe two or three parishes at the most. I must observe that I always felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by such services. I never once organized such an absolution in the four or five churches where I was in charge since the 1970s.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a054htConfession_4_Somerville.htm


and I'd say it's a right wing slant on it all --

But, too, it's one of the things that drives Protestants nuts about Catholicism --

And the intrusive nature of Confession is clear -- always had been -- young and old telling

some priest their most private sins?! Make all childlike. Insane and demeaning.

You need no middle men to find forgiveness even if you believe in the Catholic Church.

Forgiveness is authomatic. And Protestant take this is that if "God died for your sins,

then you are forgiven!" And, I agree with them.

The other thing that drives Protestants nuts is in ignoring all of that Catholics are still

threatened with Hell if they don't get that final "I am sorry for my sins" in before they die!


Keep in mind you can receive "forgiveness" directly just be asking for it -- i.e., fulfilling

the once a year requirement!

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is fond of distorting and burying information --

The most recent example of that was the Catholic Bishops coming out to try to keep reproductive

care/abortion out of the health care bill.

Rather Catholics supported single payer care by huge margins -- larger than the general public

and reproductive care and abortion to be included!

This is the church, once again, trying in any way possible to keep control over human sexuality

and reproduction.

Look for a liberal website on the Vatican II issue . . .

There are a few generations of people now who have no idea what it really did!

parts to this -- and forgot to provide this link to the first part ....

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a044htConfession_1_Somerville.htm

You'll notice that despite professing to trying to be clear, it gets more and more

muddled -- but it's quite clear who the enemies are! Pope John XXIII and progressives.

In offhand ways however he tells truths I don't think he wants to tell!

The Church is a man-made thing -- it can, therefore, be changed by men.

And, I would add, women --


And, again, that while I think Catholics at the time had a fairly good understanding of

what was being done -- still many weren't informed about all of it.

And therefore, many Catholics and future generations of Catholics could be misled quite

easily.

every seven days as a child? Damn, I think we went once, maybe twice, a year. You guys were hardcore!

A serious atheist would study religions, attend churches, and talk with clerics and believers before choosing that path. Not just accept mass media caricatures of Christians on faith.

:eyes:

NGU.

prior to denouncing it...

"study" of Noah's Ark.

After all, no one has been inside the sun, right? How do we KNOW it's not full of Angels, or cream cheese?

Caricatures, indeed.

Plenty of people gave it a chance via their upbringing and didn't feel anything or found science to make more sense or any number of other reasons why they didn't turn into believers. You don't need to study religions, read the scriptures/holy texts, speak with people who do believe etc to see that it isn't for you or that the other path is.

How many christians, catholics, protestants, muslims, jews, buddhists, hinduists, etc study their own faith, other faiths, or science before choosing that path?

It's hard to take that post seriously!

For one thing, what makes you think atheists haven't done all that? Most of us have! And then some!

For another thing, maybe a "serious" Christian should do the same thing, and include a study of irreligion, before choosing that path and not just accept Christianity on faith.

most children were put into religious training as an automatic by their parents --

And many are familiar with other religions --

How many non-patriarchal religions are you aware of?

How many that aren't male-supremacist? How many that don't teach of a "one all male god"?

Rather what we've had over the century and more is Christianity being instilled in the

public mind by PR -- remember all the religous movies Hollywood made? Still playing on TV,

infact! Remember "godless" Communism?

Only recently has there been a breakthru of truth with the sexual abuse by priests coming

out into the open.

But we all have the right to question and challenge religion and we should be doing more of it.

As an atheist, I find that many of my ilk are over-serious pains in the ass.

that there are no more obsessive in terms of "preaching their beliefs" than some determined atheists. Their fervor is driven with the same level (or perhaps even higher level) of intensity that they denounce in those pushing religious ideals.

:applause:

It's not like "American Atheist" has a circulation anywhere near the most popular magazine read by Christians; Hustler, so who's going to read it?

:scared:

I will accord them the same respect.

Which is not to say that science, and only science shouldn't be taught in public school science classes. Kids should be taught the facts about our world and universe, from the 4.7 Billion yr. age of the Earth, to the fact of evolution via natural selection. If people can't deal with that, they can send their kids to private religious schools, or home-school, whatever.

and not some cosmic threat to their souls?

Which is, I think, as it should be.

The state prosecutes parents, for example, who inflict on their children their own belief in the power of prayer, as opposed to medicine, to heal sickness. Or in the belief that daily thrashings, if spared, spoil the child. So where does that point begin and the state's trust in parents to wisely raise their children end?

I asked this question in another thread a while ago and got all sorts of angry posts implying I trusted the state more than parents. I don't trust either. The question I think we should all be asking ourselves is where the line should be drawn between parental and state authority and responsibility for children's well-being. The main reason we give parents so much leeway is that it's efficient. But in smaller societies, children are raised by a group of adults--not just their parents, but their uncles and aunts and neighbors. There are checks and balances against abuse (which may not always work, of course, and which don't prevent, for example, some African Muslim societies from hacking off their daughters' clitorises as they're coming of sexual age). In this society, we make teacher's and other state agents be on the lookout for signs of parental abuse.

We're clearly not ready for a campaign against indoctrinating children in harmful beliefs not easily unlearned. I wonder why. I wonder why we have such a high tolerance for allowing parents to systematically drill radical falsehoods (such as young earth creationism) into their children's heads. I wonder how many of those kids who eventually liberate themselves from that indoctrination resent the hell out of people who allowed that to happen to them, putting them at such a radical disadvantage just because they were the children of their idiot parents.

And I also wonder what other sorts of more insidious indoctrination is going on. I think it's an important question. I don't pretend to have a single answer for it. I just don't think it's wise to look the other way.

and physically abusing them. The state doesn't prosecute parents who teach their kids that Jesus (or crystals, or Orgone collectors) will heal sick people; the state prosecutes parents when they don't take their very sick children to the doctor. Big difference.

I'm not looking the other way, either. But either people have the right to teach their kids goofy stuff, or they don't. And if the state DOES get into telling people what they can teach their kids, it's a slippery slope. Because, no, I don't trust whoever happens to be in charge at any given moment to be able to accurately define what constitutes "goofy shit", and what doesn't.

(I make my kids listen to the Grateful Dead in the car a lot when I'm driving... and I know a few certain pseudo-punk would be hipster friends of mine who would CERTAINLY classify that as "abuse" :rofl: :hippie:)

I don't know who has a "high tolerance" for young Earth creationism, but it's not me. At the same time, though, I also don't have a high tolerance for folks trying to run other peoples lives; and it's not- nor should it be- against the law to be stupid, or even wrong.

I draw the line at letting that gibberish through the door of the public school science class.. In that forum, it should be roundly kicked on its sorry ass, and if anyone insists on dragging it back in, it deserves all the ridicule it gets. But people do have the right to teach their kids dumb, goofy shit. That doesn't mean they have the right to physically harm them. Again, big difference.

Besides, trying to run other peoples' lives... AND being unable to distinguish what people think from what they DO... are both classic hallmarks of fundamentalist religious thought, in and of themselves, not free thought and open inquiry IMHO.

;-)

Seriously, I'm certainly not arguing for the state to prosecute parents for teaching their children stupid shit. I'm not arguing for the state to put homeschooler's in foster homes. I am arguing that the state is hypocritical, even immoral, when it urges "standards" for children in its public education system and excuses from those standards only those children whose parents want to fill their heads with shit. We can all laugh at the dumb hicks and look the other way as they pour rot into their children's heads, write it off as their right to be stupid and free to make their kids stupid too. But then *what* are those standards for again? Why don't we just let all parents fill their kids' heads with stupid shit? Why educate any kid on the public's dime? This is a serious question.

Do individuals have a right to learn science? Do they have a right to learn personally and socially enriching critical skills? Or is that something we want to trust completely to accident? Is education just glorified babysitting/daycare? (It resembles that more and more.) Or is it a person's right--not just the right of parents' for their kids, but a kid's right?

if they're so inclined.

That's really the only logical answer I have to your very legitimate line of reasoning- it's available, but, at the end of the day, not mandatory. And I'm not uncomfortable with anyone being mandated to think anything. AFAIK there *are* at least some standards for home-schooling (I believe they vary state-to-state), there are standards for private schools, those are mandated by the gov't; and kids who are taught YE Creationism are going to have a hell of a time getting in to a university level Geology program, for instance.

But we don't say you can not, under any circumstances, teach such-and-such to your kids on your own time. (I think that might run up against the 1st Amendment, don't you?) Granted, it's a bit fuzzy, but I don't know how it could be any simpler. Similarly, as for kids rights v. Parents rights- we have a lot of decisions for kids that are made by parents, that are the province of parents. That's partially a reflection of the simple realities of parenthood.

That's not what I'm proposing. Of course not. I wouldn't want anyone to be under a legal obligation to think anything specific--in other words, to hold certain beliefs. Of course that would be not only impractical but unconscionable.

Of course, that's exactly what the theocrats would be working on if they got anywhere near the reins of power: mandating Christian (or whatever ideology) thought for all children.

On the contrary, what I'm proposing is something more like mandating the teaching of critical thought for all children. If you want to homeschool your child, you should, I argue, have to demonstrate that your child will learn critical thinking skills when you're through wreaking your Christian (or whatever) little havoc on her. Those are standards I can get behind, and they should be enforced strictly for every child in the nation (barring those who are demonstrably too developmentally disabled to do much learning of any kind).

In fact, I would argue, if we can't make this universal, there's no good point in publicly educating any child. Might as well create a public babysitting service for working moms and dads who can't homeschool or privately educate their children in whatever idiotic way they see fit.

But I agree that standards are legitimate in that area.

about the world? All they can teach is their narrow, cultish, archaic views.

You will rarely meet a kid with good childhood memories of their catholic school and sunday school bible teachings. Sure, a few of those nuns stand out, surely many have done good works. But how can you appreciate someone so unevolved as to believe in imaginary gods, angels, mythical places like heavens and hells. It is not rational or logical.

So you are preaching to the proverbial choir, if you'll excuse the pun.

:toast:
(Welcome to DU!)

Or that they are cloistered at all. Heck, they even let some get college degrees now :sarcasm:

The nuns lived lives before they became nuns. Most live "in the real world." You could say the same about 60-year-old elementary school teachers who have very little understanding of thew world the 1st graders live in now.

(Stunned that I have to be the defender of Catholicism so many times)

Just needed to stir up the hornet's nest?

Leads to injury and deaths.

--imm

Daycare is not, as they rarely get past the "Jesus Loves Me This I Know" doctrine

My advice to Christians, be careful, because some smart little toddler may grow up to topple your house of cards as well.

'Sorry.'

When did that happen?

A dear friend of mine who grew up with parents who were religious fanatics. She always felt like a war was going on in her head. She thought if he had a good thought it was 'God', and if she had a bad thought it was 'Satan'. Her mind was a constant battleground where she could never find any peace. Because of 'Christianity' and the guilt, shame and abuse she was exposed to she reached a point where she tried to kill herself by slashing both wrists. She was so close to death but paramedics reached her in time, NOT GOD, and she ended up in mental hospitals for 3/4ths of a year.

Just in my life I have seen so much damage done by Christianity, especially the most fundamentalist churches. Because of all the harm I've seen I view Christianity as a disease and to force little children to be subjected to it truly is child abuse.

Before my friend tried to commit suicide she invited me to her Baptist church on a Wednesday night. As I sat in the pews the preacher kept condemning everyone in the congregation as bad, evil and saying they were going to hell. I couldn't take the abusive things this guy was saying and I got up and left the church. On the way out I was confronted by two women in the hall and they told me in a condemning way, "Where do you think you're going?". I told them "I'm going outside to be closer to the real 'God'. They got even more pissed, but I just walked right by them. I was very proud of myself for getting the nerve to leave, confront those abusive women and once I got outside on a clear night with a sky full of stars I thought how I did the right thing. I was so repulsed at the absolute evil within that church.

It's no wonder why a lot of 'Christian' people kill themselves, go on rampages, drown their children and a host of other horrible things all done in the name of 'god'. Christianity is a disease of absolute ignorance. So is every other religion that condemns people as sinners and worthless. I bet the incidence of mental disease is much higher among 'Christians' than non-religious people.

I know one thing, in any hereafter I hope I go in the opposite direction of 'christians' like George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, all conservative 'christians' and all the other evil people who buy into their hate. Spending an eternity with them would be total hell.

denominations to which I was ever exposed (and in my college years, I sampled lots before settling into spirituality as a personal, non-formal and largely non-religious kind of thing.... I would likewise denounce this kind of barbaric take on "Christianity. I hope your friend gets some secular help.

Thanks for your concern for her. I agree with you and have attended a specific 'church' where it's not based on fear or negativity but rather one's personal enlightenment, and that all people are a part of a larger force (god, or whatever) and we are all linked. I've been to a lot of different brands and the fundamentalist churches were scary, with people crying out with each utterance of 'Jesus', falling into the isles and speaking in tongues. It was a frightening spectacle.

I believe a person can be in touch with their spirituality without ever hearing about religion. And I also believe a religious person might not have a clue about their own spirituality because it was taken hostage by a set of rules, condemnations, and fears taught to them at an early age. They are like prisoners to their religions, unable to see beyond the bars that hold them. Right wing 'Christians' seem opposed to all of Jesus' teachings.

I'd like to see this study done myself with a sample pool of several million. Compare all major religions and belief systems:

1. Catholics
2. Mainline Protestants
3. Fundamentalist Christians
4. Islam
5. Hinduism
6. Agnostics
7. Atheists
8. Anti-theists
9. etc.
10. etc.


My guess is that #3 and #8 would fall exactly in line and around the same percentage.

Agree with your post -- and sorry about your friend --

Of course, not everyone goes nuts -- but in our town we had the notorious

Lutheran zealot who killed his wife, his mother, and his children -- John List.

Remember him?

Just another example of religious insanity, instilled by his own fanatically religious

family and his church.

I hate atheists like this. Part of parenting is passing on the things you believe are right to your children.

their kids.

I think it's a bad road to go down.

I believe your choices of what you teach him should be VERY limited.

:applause:

"indoctrination."

principles at a religious school!




Kidding, just kidding! Put down the pitchforks! :rofl:

I thought child-molesting priests were bad enough, but trying to adapt in the post Web 2.0 world, where any self-promoting weasel with a keyboard can read up someone else's life-time acquired knowledge and present it as their own expertise ... where any compensator who chose a career path to a safe $80k+ annual can acquire technical hardware and software to "indulge my creative side" and present the results as their own skillset ... is enough to drive crazy, anyone who was forced to spend their childhood in an environment where reaching for an ideal was emphasized.

He doesn't seem too abused.

Or maybe it's just me.

In fact, any other religious schooling is okay.

It's only the Christian ones that are bad & commit child abuse.

dg

I'm not an atheist or a christian and he just seems on the ignorant side to me.

private christian school until oldest was in fourth grade.

good to see so many on du view me as an abuser of my children without knowing shit about how we did it, and what it gave my children.... in their very young life.

cheers to ignorance and lack of understanding or knowledge or insight. either side.

... Especially young, good Christian boys who are "just letting off a little steam, Your Honor" ... with baseball bats.

"Out Demon!! Quick Emma sit on her chest...the Devil has her...!!"

I can tell you this:

Christian upbringing of any strict and dogmatic nature introduces children very early to the concepts of shame, guilt, repression, fear of death, fear of hell, and the "worthlessness of man." The lasting psychological damage done by the introduction of these concepts, starting at roughly age 6 in most denominations I know, traps children into becoming mal-adjusted adults who are far too easy to manipulate. You want proof of this? Look at the parts of the country which are deepest red.

I have generally seen pretty solid religious identification surveys putting Christianity at about 75% (which I think is a bullshit number and just reflects those that aren't really religious but keep the label for whatever reason, but that's just my thinking). I have rarely seen numbers over 80%.

But how much of this country is deep red? How much of that deep red is Christian (at least 83%, I suppose). What is your threshold for saying there might be a problem?

If they don't feel constrained by reality in one thing, why should they feel constrained by it elsewhere?

Rumsfeld who was circulating Pentagon communications with Christian/Bibical quotes

imprinted on them -- while at the same time giving approval to the rape of young

children in our prisons -- with mothers watching and filmed -- so they could be moved

to finally confess!

Remember W saying that "god" told him to attack Afghanistan and then later "god"

told him to attack Iraq!

specific types of upbringing is a form of child abuse. The author would then name the specific types of upbringing, and then make an argument as to why the author feels this way.

A simplistic example: the author may claim teaching children to hate gay people is a form of child abuse, and then gives reasons such as the fact the child may be gay.

slum area of a major US city

When both parents need to work at low-paying jobs to keep the family fed and try to get ahead, reasonably priced professional daycare serves a real need

The kids got a good breakfast and lunch, and morning and afternoon snacks, developmentally appropriate activities, some outdoor exercise in a safe enclosed playground, and interaction from staff who cared

The common alternative was for parents just to leave their kids illegally with a bunch of other kids in a neighbors slum apartment where they'd watch TV most of the day, for some monetary consideration

David Smalley is, of course, entitled to whatever opinions he wants to hold, but I doubt whether there's much behind his sweeping generalizations except his own ignorant prejudice

That atheists should shut up so that crazy bastards like Newsbusters don't have something to say? Newsflash: they will always bitch about something. Be happy that the atheists are taking the heat off you.

Typical. "Shut them down! To the dungeon with them!!!!":eyes:

It's the starting premise for the whole religion. If you were not born a sinner, you wouldn't need Jesus and substitutionary atonement.

Since ALL Christians start from the premise that we are ALL sinners, even as small innocent children, and they believe you will go to hell if you do not become one of them, ALL Christians are guilty of child abuse in their doctrine, even if they do not specifically tell the child they are going to hell.

I told our fundy carpenter the other day how evil it was to tell a little child he was a sinner and to crush his spirit.

It's not just the fundies. ALL Christians believe in original sin. I was raised Presbyterian, graduated from a very fine Presbyterian university, and they are not fundies, but the idea you were going to hell if you were not a Christian was still there. As i said, starting premise.

And I have studied many religions and taken several difficult college level courses in religion and the Bible, and I know more about what it says than the fundies do. I also know about how it has been mistranslated and is a hodgepodge of sources translated through five or six languages, edited to reinforce the patriarchal domination of the church, and that there are no independent or contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus.

Basically it's a pretty sorry book to run your life by, with no original morality that cannot be found in other belief systems in better and more practical form.

"Nobody's perfect."

There is a huge difference between "Nobody's perfect" and "You're a sinner, even if you don't consciously do anything wrong, and you are going to hell and suffer ETERNAL PUNISHMENT unless you repent".

HUGE difference.
Read some John Bradshaw, Ph.D., former Jesuit priest, if you want to read about how abusive unearned shame and guilt is when laid on little children -- actually laid on anyone. Many grownups become suicidal and never learn to like themselves because of this toxic myth.

How would you like it if a crooked prosecutor framed you, and everyone you know and said "You are being indicted for a violent felony, you're going to jail, and there is nothing you can do about it". Even if he knew you were innocent but did it just for meanness?

That is what the Christian God looks like to those of us with law degrees. A crooked, immoral prosecutor that just doesn't care what the truth is. A sociopath.

And we get this unjustified, unearned shame and guilt laid on us when we are little kids and don't understand why. It's irrational because it's unjustified and used to control us. Bradshaw says that the reason we have an addicted society is that everyone is trying to get away from the horrible feelings of shame and guilt they have by compulsively repeating behaviors to take their minds off of that shame and guilt: Gambling, working, sex, lying, overachieving, underachieving, praying, drinking alcohol, smoking, raging and screaming, etc.

This is just one of his many books, CDs and DVDs about dysfunctional families.

Quoting from www.johnbradshaw.com:

"Healing the Shame that Binds You:
This New York Times #1 Best Seller, HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU is John Bradshaw’s most enduring work. In it, he shows how unhealthy toxic shame is the core component of our compulsions including, codependency, lying, addiction, and the drive to super-achieve or underachieve. This toxic shame, most often experienced in childhood, results in the breakdown of our self-esteem, the destruction of the family system, an inability to move forward and form lasting intimate relationships in our lives.

"This book HEALING THE SHAME THAT BONDS YOU is recommended for academic, professional, private, public, and personal libraries and those seeking the one great thing that is missing in their life--WHOLENESS.

"People who bought this series HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU, with John Bradshaw also bought the series, HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU, BRADSHAW ON: THE FAMILY, A THEOLOGY OF ADDICTION, THE CORE OF SPIRITUALITY, and THE SHAME BASED FAMILY."

http://www.johnbradshaw.com/creatinglove-1-1-2-1.aspx

Bradshaw is an expert on the toxic psychology of religion and our society in general. The source of his ideas is Alice Miller's work on the Poisonous Pedagogy, which says that the will of the child must be broken and the child must be totally obedient and unquestioning to all adults, and that this produces people like Hitler. It is still a common way to raise children in the U.S. as well.

He expanded on her work and made it more readable to an American audience.

But thanks, again, for telling me what I have to believe to be Christian. Always helpful! :hi:

don't think you're one of them. Your beliefs on Jesus' death and resurrection, your beliefs on the need and nature of salvation, these things don't mesh at all with the VAST majority of the world's Christians. In fact, I find it odd that one with your beliefs would actually call themselves Christian at all, when it would be far more fitting to simply call yourself a Girardian and be done with it.

Girard is a Christian, too.

That's the big difference.

"Messiah" doesn't mean "savior". It means "anointed one'.

Since you ask, I think following/imitating Jesus saves me from the violence of the world. Interestingly, the ancient Hebrews used words which translate to "salvation" before they believed in a life after death. So, what did they expect God to save them from? It certainly wasn't a big fire after they died.

And yes, most Christians today don't believe Jesus saves them from violence. I think the early Christians did.

Wikipedia agrees with you and says that Messiah literally translated from ancient Hebrew means "annointed (one)".

Of course, I also wanted something to back Wiki, given its track record, so I went to wordnet and found this:Interestingly, the word annointed never appears there.

I've always been taught that Messiah meant deliverer, while Christ meant annointed one. This would be the source of my earlier question to you, "saving you from what?" That view, that Christ the annointed one came to earth as the Messiah to deliver us from evil is the cornerstone of Christianity. I have to admit that under very broad definitions of evil and deliverance your view falls under this description, but it's a stretch.

Now, what I wonder, is how you can claim knowledge of the "early Christian" view on the nature and necessity of deliverance. Where does your thought come from? I certainly have never seen such an idea in the Bible itself.