Religion as child abuse
Thu, 2008-08-28 10:14 - Kerry
The case of the British muslim who forced his children to flog themselves has rightly caused outrage - including among many in the muslim community. But are we in danger of missing a more important point?
By: Steve, Free Infidel
The Ashura ceremony, part of the month-long period of ‘mourning’ known as Muharram, is an important part of the Shia calendar. It calls for blood. To commemorate the slaughter of Muhammed’s grandson and his family, many men indulge themselves in self-flagellation - a ritual they apparently call ‘zanjeer zani’.
Syed Zaidi, who was brought up in Pakistan, has long been one of them. But he went further. In a ceremony at a community centre in Levenshulme, near Manchester, he first ensured his own blood was flowing before passing his zanjeer - a chained whip with five blades - to two young boys, aged 13 and 15.
In court, the boys said they were ‘forced’ to whip themselves. Zaidi claims they were willing (though presumably under intense peer pressure to join in). Under the law it makes no difference. Adults have a duty to ensure that children under the age of 16 do not come to harm - which includes harming themselves.
Christopher Hitchens has famously condemned the religous indoctrination of children as child abuse. There could be no more graphic illustration than this bloody ritual. Allowing this to happen to these young boys was an act of both primitive savagery and callous stupidity.
Many in the muslim community agree. Some are organising blood donations as a way of partaking in the commemoration in a more civilised fashion. It seems that having young boys flog themselves is taking religious zealotry beyond the theshold of acceptable behaviour for most in our society.
What none of this addresses is the damage already done to these boys. One needs to ask if, once they achieve the age of 16, it would be perfectly acceptable for these boys - who would, indeed, still be boys - to indulge in tearing their own flesh. The Early Christians used to partake in similar self-mortification which the Romans considered disgustingly uncivilised. They were right. That was 2,000 years ago and Christianity, at least in that respect, has grown up a little.
What kind of damage must be done to the psyche, to one’s moral framework, to one’s grip on civilisation, to accept this kind of behaviour from anyone of any age as admirable, worthwhile or even sensible?
In order to reach that point where the boys would even consider taking the whip in hand, they had to pass through a process of religious indoctrination. Childhood should be a period of learning, of opening the mind. But religious education is all about closing it, narrowing the possibilities and outlook, shutting off avenues of thought, conforming to a blinkered - and frequently archaic and bizarre - worldview.
The fact that anyone could consider these boys as ‘muslims’ is an indication that child abuse had taken place long before the blades tore into their skin. It’s not the whip from which they need to be protected - it’s the path that leads to it.
- Add new comment
- 238 reads
Comments
"Blood Sacrifice"
In the above case, readers can see how easily someone can/will do something damaging, all in the name of religious discipline.
I think back to the Closed Era of Adoption, and how so many unmarried Catholic Girls were sent to maternity homes so the shame of an unwanted pregnancy could go undetected by one's local society. Many of these young mothers were told the sacrifice they were making would be rewarded. Many thought the sin of premarital sex needed punishment, so child relinquishment was the perfect solution to such depraved "immature" acts of immoral (sexual) behavior. Many thought they would be forgiven for the acts they have done, (and yet whose forgiveness did they seek?).
As one who was one woman's blood sacrifice in the late 1960's, it sickens me knowing how many children are still becoming the victims of this breed of barbaric generational thinking: severely scarring punishment is good for the soul.
In terms of religion, I don't know which is scarier... those who SAY they treat others as they want themselves to be treated, or those who treat themselves to a beating, first, and then look to those who deserve one, too.
I thank God He has made me smart and sensitive enough to free myself from man-made religions that use cruelty as teaching tools. And yet I live with such a heavy heart knowing: thanks to religion, there are those who have wounds that may never heal.
One man's origins: fate or faith?
The man mentioned in this article, Syed Zaidi, is living in England, but comes from Pakistan. The two boys mentioned were his brothers. [See BBC news for full story: "How a Shia ritual ended in court", http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7583845.stm]
To give perspective on this man's home-land experience and how faith alters social dynamics, please read what takes place in Pakistan:
[From: "SPARC issues child abuse statistics", http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C08%5C28%5Cstory_28-8-2008_pg7_39]I can't help but find it ironic that one man's freedom is still costing beatings on the back. At least we all know after death, there is no more pain.
Then and Now
I am one who believes in the Bible. In the Old Testament it talks of heathen people who sacrificed their first born children
to gods (small g); also people who sacrificed their other children in different ways to false gods.
At first I noticed that people who have abortions, it was usually their first born. And now I see whole nations and peoples
who sacrifice their children to adoption. To me, as Kerry mentioned the Catholic church and unwed mothers believing
they would be blessed by giving up their children, this is, more and more seeming like religious rituals going on, with
innocent children being the sacrifices.
A pure and Holy God can not look on this abomination forever; in fact, to me it points toward the beginning of the end.... There
has to be an end. The God I believe in said, "suffer the little children to come unto Me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."
He also said, "it is better for a man to have a bolder tied around his neck and thrown into the sea than to hurt any of HIS
children." That's my paraphrase of the scripture. And do we not think these child traffickers and pedophiles will surely
stand before that God (those of us of faith) and receive such an utter and quick deliverance into hell for eternity? But I also
believe that God can be an angry God and that those who are destroying the lives of children are going to reap what they
sow, right here on earth.
I can not live unless I believe that God will bring vengeance upon these evil people! The more I read and know of the evil
that is put upon innocent children, the more I believe there is a God Who is the opposite of this evil and will somehow
bring justice.
I HAVE SEEN the justice of a HOLY God! My husband got 25 years for destroying a child's life! He deserved it. God
made sure he got it. And if you think that is not enough; at the very least he was found out for what he was and made
an example of so that his family would not have to ever be hurt that way again! That is justice.
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
That was 2,000 years ago
I think that is wishful thinking. Surely the progressive christian churches have embraced a more child friendly approach, but stronger than the rise of progressive churches is the rise of fundamentalist churches who much rather listen to:
Fundamentalist christians are not much unlike fundamentalist muslims, their teachings, their methods and their beliefs are almost identical and in both worlds it's the children that suffer.
Watch this video and tell me if we have really grown up?
And compare these
The Letter From Hell....
IMHO, the video about the letter from hell is pure propaganda. No one is responsible for another person's soul going
to hell or heaven. I almost laughed...
The Bible stands on Its own as the Word of God with power to save souls; people may spread the Word of God, but
it is only God Who saves the soul or condemns it to hell.
And those little preachers were really scary. If not for my hearing some things I truly believe, I would believe they are
just good actors, which they probably are...
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
Teaching fear and hatred
I would have laughed too, if this video wasn't used to scare the bajeebus out of children. Sure a stable and mature mind can see the propaganda behind this, but can eighth graders. This particular video was in fact used by a teacher to teach children the wrath of God and it is especially aimed at the young and impressionable mind. This is not just a mere accident, since 1992 Rev. Keenan Roberts organizes so-called Hell Houses, aimed at children and showing a sequences of tableaus designed to create terror and revulsion. Typical scenes include:
The young actors, I believe, are used to the advantage of adults to brainwash them with false beliefs. I can't say anything about the Iranian boy, since I don't understand his language, nor the Arabic subtitles, but the Brazillian boy is a clear cut example of a boy being tought over and over what to say and what to believe in, irrespective fact and reason. Every adult has the right to deny scientific fact in favour of irrational belief, but I think it is cruel to teach children a hatred towards fact and reason and force them to to believe something that is factually incorrect.
Root of All Evil
What it reminds me...
When I see this kind of video, it makes me think of my afather.
He became a born again Christian and a child abuser at the same time. At that time, I didn't make the connection between the religion and the abuse. I was only impressed by his eloquence when he was talking about "accept Jesus"-"saved by the grace of God"-"forgiven in the name of Jesus"... About three months after he became Christian, I rejected all kind of his religion (Protestant)) and mine (Catholic). He spoke more and more of the Bible and he talked to me like in this video. "Accept Christ and you will be saved" - "if you don't accept Jesus in your heart, you will end up in the hell" ... and at the same time, he was abusing.
I strongly hold to the verse that Teddy wrote (and that my afather never mentionned): "it is better for a man to have a bolder tied around his neck and thrown into the sea than to hurt any of HIS children"
I'll never understand...
HOW could my ex-husband sit in church, next to my daughter, knowing he was abusing her? He would pray in church
out loud. PRAY OUT LOUD!!! How did he do that? I am so ashamed of him. And my poor daughter sat there knowing
her father was a pedophile and she could do nothing about it. But she finally had enough, and now he knows the
meaning of that scripture: "it is better for a man to have a bolder tied around his neck and thrown into the sea than to hurt any of HIS children." I hope she can have a better life; it took courage for her to finally tell.
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
I'll never understand either
I never saw my afather praying at home, but I heard him singing and praying at church with his hands up.
I don't understand either and will never understand because I saw that the Bible talks not only about "forgiveness, love and heaven" but it also talks about "reward, revenge and hell". I wonder what my afather learned at his bible studies.
To know words or to DO words...
I think both of these men knew words and could speak words that made others think they were something they were
not. I think it was a game.
They were addicted to sex with a young girl, and maybe, each time they went to church they confessed their sins, only
to go home and continue in the addiction.
Were they forgiven each time? If God really believed their confessions, why did He not take away the addiction? I truly
think it was the devil in them that made them able to say words but never change.
I look back in such fear at WHY God did not destroy them as they sat by their victims in church pretending to worship
a Holy God. It was such a slap in the face to God... and it was was so deceiving to the family... but it was the worst
for the child who knew.
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
Personal choices
It is a grave misunderstanding that religion and morality have anything to do with one another. As a matter of fact morality foregoes religion. All religious texts write down moral lessons and moral laws, but no religious person adheres to all moral rules laid down in the texts. People pick and choose what fits best with their own morality or their own self-interest.
If people didn't have personal morality how else would someone be able to prefer "he who is without sin cast the first stone" to "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death." The vast majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims alike don't stone a daughter to death when she has committed adultery. It is not that the book of Deuteronomy has somehow become obsolete or was edited out of the religious texts. There also is no later book that says: "God was only joking, he didn't mean it" and none of the religious texts contain a manual on how to pick and choose from the moral rules. So the only logical conclusion is that people have a personal morality that is independent of a religious text.
Still there is a weird sense of respect towards people's faith. Where I, as an atheist, have to defend my moral stance with rational arguments, a person of faith is excempt from that same scrutiny. Yet the same personal choice has been applied in taking that stance. The fact someone has found a religious fragment to back up his stance or a simple statement of "that's what God tells me" is enough to make his position respectable. That automatic respect for faith based conduct gives much more power to people and organizations than they deserve, while it still is and always will be personal opinion.
The uncriticized power given to faith can be used to the benefit of people and many faith based initiatives do indeed do good work, it also gives way to abuse of power, hypocrisy and corruption. There are heinous wars defended in the name of religion, while that same religion is used to oppose those very wars. Children have been abused in the name of Gods and children have been protected in the name of God. But that "in the name of God" is just a blanket statement. It was always a personal choice. Heinous wars have been fought out of personal choice as much as their opposition was a personal choice. Children have been abused as a personal choice as much as children have been protected as a personal choice.
moral law/judicial law
There is not one person who could keep the 10 commandments; humans are fallible. Yet, the God I believe in saw
fit to have them in the Bible as a way of showing man his sinfulness. IMO, and as I understand the Bible, Christ was
sent to fulfill the law that humans could not obey. Believing in Christ and His atonement for sin is the only way a
human can ever hope in Heaven.
To the human, God and His ways are not rational or logical; that's because He is God. Having faith in God releases me from having to be logical or having to defend my moral stance with rational arguments; and so, yes, a person of faith is exempt from what you are scrutinized for.
I truly do not believe there is non-criticized power given to faith; in fact, I believe faith has been scrutinized down through
the ages and come up very short. "In the name of faith," there has been much abuse of power, hypocrisy and corruption;
and in true faith there has been some good done; yet, I give God the glory for what was done in true faith and blame
humans for the abuses.
I'm on your side, Niels, when it comes to "religion" and all that it has done to make adoption a dirty word in our minds.
I do not have religion, nor do I believe it is such a good thing. I only have faith in the God I have never seen but truly believe in.
I can understand that a man who does not believe in God has the weight on his shoulders to defend his moral stance with rational arguments, because I have had to do the same at times in defending why I do believe in God
.
Personal choices, IMO have been dangerous when I did not include a plea for God's help in making them. For others,
with faith in self, I imagine there have been dangerous choices made, too. But what I see is your ability to live with the
choices you make on your own, backing them with your moral stance and rational arguments, and for that I admire you.
IMO, the moral law still stands, while the old Mosaic laws were before Christ's fulfillment of the whole law and were
for a time when they were waiting for The Messiah Who would bring peace; it was a totally different covenant. Those
of faith believe in the new covenant of grace: faith coming by hearing the word of God. I, in no way believe that religion
has anything to do with right and wrong. But I understand why you believe like you do and respect you.
What is done "in the name of God" is most times blasphemous. And what evil that is done "in the name of God", IMO, will
be judged by God, and eventually vengeance will be His. Maybe we will be a part of that vengeance; we can only
hope.
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy