End Hereditary Religion » Secularism

Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead

Richard Collins — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 05:37:07 +0000

10 Saturday Sep 2011

Posted by Michael Goldfield in Child Abuse

IN PUBLIC FORUMS on the internet, we have lively debates over whether Hitler was a hero or whether or not the holocaust ever occurred. We could also probably find a debate over whether slavery ever existed in the United States. We might even get an argument that the Earth is flat and always has been. And, given what has also yet to become common knowledge, we can still find arguments in favor of hitting young children as a form of punishment.

For example, those who developed through their formative years having adopted as a part of their belief system that adults hit children as an acceptable practice will take on this treatment of children as a belief not dissimilar to the religious beliefs they’ve adopted during this same stage of development. And, these are beliefs that tend to become deeply ingrained.

Those who happen to overcome and evolve beyond such irrational belief systems seem to be the exception to the rule. Sadly, it would seem that few children are able to avoid early childhood brainwashing to a particular religion or orientation. Typically, our little ones will buy into what we feed them lock, stock and barrel.

Herein lies the problem of change in the face of overwhelming evidence. Let’s liken this change to telling a grown man that his name is actually Archibald instead of Joe. Lot’s of luck. It’s going to take awhile, no doubt, and repeated efforts are in order.

So, once again, let’s try driving home the facts that carry with them the hope of breaking through just a few more of those bigoted obstacles still standing in the way of social progress.

To begin with, I feel it’s most important to make it very clearly known to any and all concerned that the debate on spanking within the scientific and academic communities is dead and has been for a number of years. The most substantial indicator of this development is evidenced by the fact that virtually every professional organization in the U.S. and Canada concerned with the care and treatment of children has taken a public stance against the practice of spanking.

Based on the overwhelming accumulation of research conducted over the past 50 plus years linking spanking to a number of risk factors, the professional consensus against this practice has grown to world-wide proportions … even to the extent that Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, Venezuela, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Uruguay, and Ukraine have all legislated total bans on spanking … with Italy, South Africa, Scotland, Canada, and Ireland apparently in the process of following suit. It should also be noted that every industrialized country in the world has banned spanking in schools. The evidence is in, and the evidence has found against the practice of spanking in a compellingly conclusive manner.

Just as one might find supportive views toward spanking being promoted (typically) on web sites sponsored by fundamentalist Christian sects, so can one find supportive views promoting Homophobia, Racism, Misogyny, and other “hate group” propaganda. Because the actual agendas of these sites are often deceptively disguised by organizational titles such as “Family Council”, “People’s Choice”, “Rights and Freedoms”, etc., people are forced to exercise a highly judicious discernment of the information being made available on the Internet. Some web surfers have had to learn the hard way that the Internet abounds with persuasive presentations of “facts and figures” that can prove to represent nothing more than religious, political, or philosophical attempts to spread self-serving misinformation.

Having spent over 30 years examining and evaluating the research on spanking children, I am able to state with a high degree of confidence that there has never been a peer-reviewed study that has been able to establish the efficacy of spanking as a means of long-term behavior modification; as an effective teaching modality; as an effective punishment or as a means of instilling self-discipline. Nor has there been published research findings in peer-reviewed professional journals that served to refute previous research. This previous research found spanking to be associated with a risk for undesirable emotional consequences; a risk for physical injury; a risk of counter-productive behavioral outcomes; a risk for the onset of dependence on external controls and a proclivity toward authority-directed behavior. Moreover, there has never been research data finding that spanking carries no risk to the quality of the parent-child relationship (and I should add that conservative editorial reviews of previous research findings do not constitute actual research, as is sometimes claimed to be the case).

Nevertheless, there are some spankers who will find reasons to dismiss, ignore, or discount the research findings of field conducted experimental studies related to the Social Sciences. It is especially these folks that I’d like to address concerning alarming new research findings which represent the most severe consequences of physical punishment yet discovered … while doing so in the form of documented scientific proof.*

These revelations have come through studies in brain research having provided Cat Scan images showing an abnormal lack of brain development (within the portion of the brain responsible for emotional functioning) in children who had been subject to spankings as a punitive measure. For the sake of sample homogeneity, the researchers chose subjects for their study that had been categorized as “abused” children. Common sense tells us that this does not eliminate the possibility of a lesser degree of brain damage occurring to spanked children who are subjected to a lesser degree of non-injurious violence. In other words, it would be ludicrous to assume that a child must first suffer bruises, cuts, or welts (or other injuries), before brain damage can take place as a result of the physical punishments. Rather, it is much more logical to deduce that acts of physical aggression toward young children can disrupt or prevent the optimal conditions necessary to facilitate a normal process of healthy brain development.

As far as I’m concerned, this new area of research (apparently not yet freely available on the Internet) represents the most compelling, undeniable reason that has yet been discovered to persuade parents to stop (or never start) striking their children as a punitive measure. And I hope any pro-spankers reading this feel the same way. It’s difficult to imagine any parent who would be willing to treat their child in a way that might carry even a remote risk of causing a measure of brain damage to their child.

In spite of having said all of that, we should not need research to end the practice of striking children any more than we needed research to end the practice of striking wives. As a society, there was no need for research findings to convince us of the harmful effects associated with the practice of wives being physically punished.

Instead, when society reached the point of being no longer willing to grant social tolerance to the tradition of husbands physically disciplining their wives, our decision to do so was based on our having progressed socially into the higher morality of a greater humanity. Perhaps, the next step in forward progress should come by way of reaching a decision to begin recognizing children as also being deserving of those same protections against being struck.

No longer do we see any adult members of our society remaining outside the jurisdiction of the protective laws once enjoyed by only the more privileged and “deserving” (namely white males who made the laws), regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnic group or sexual orientation. None of our adult citizens remain legally unprotected from being violated through harassment, threats, defamation, discrimination or being victimized by violence to any degree or form. So, given our heritage of bestowing a greater humanity upon those of a lower social status by welcoming them as our equals in the eyes of the law (in terms of violent treatment), would it be so out of character for us to also shelter the younger, weaker members of our society by allowing them to join those of us already sharing in the security and comfort of safety that is provided under the umbrella of legal protections from violence?

Bringing our little ones into the fold really doesn’t seem all that magnanimous if we keep in mind that we’ve already been willing to share the shelter of our umbrella of assault laws with even the most vicious of hardened adult criminals. After all, children are the very last segment of our shared human collective who still remain as fair game for being subjected to acts of physical aggression. We display a strange sense of priorities when we don’t allow the prison guard to break-out a paddle and start whacking away on the disobedient buttocks of a sociopathic death-row inmate who kills for the rush it gives him, yet we find helpless, defenseless young children deserving of such treatment.

We characterize corporal punishments of prison inmates as Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Guard Brutality and Aggravated Assault. And, should the physical punishments be repeated as a routine punitive measure, such treatment of prisoners would fall under the definition of torture.

Why would a murderous inmate be less subject to physical discipline than a helpless 3-year-old child?

Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead … save for those who would object to further social progress.

As we evolve as a society, we have to keep in mind that historically there was a time when it was acceptable to legally own other people; a time when the mentally ill were generally considered to be possessed by evil spirits; a time when men legally shot each other in officiated duels; a time when public hangings were attended as a family outing complete with picnic basket; a time when public floggings were considered acceptable punishment; a time when it was a gentleman’s agreement that husbands should not beat their wives with a switch that was ‘bigger-round than your thumb’ (which later became known as ‘the rule of thumb’); and there was a time when there were no laws against parents severely beating their children (killing children was unacceptable, of course, but an occasional accidental maiming as a result of disciplinary measures was tolerated).

Obviously, we no longer permit these punishments. The time has come for us to further our level of social sophistication by coming to a general agreement that any degree of physical punishment used against children is as socially unacceptable and repugnant as those past violent behaviors we have chosen to put behind us.

by James C. Talbot
Author of The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide
Visit www.positivedisciplining.com

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

← Previous post

2 thoughts on “The Debate on Spanking is Dead”

Pingback: Spanking has no merit, and no necessity. | The Childhood Holocaust Record
totanaca said:

09/12/2011 at 9:34 pm

A powerful and compelling essay. I forwarded to all my social nets. They know by now how I feel about this issue and I have tried many times to express your ideas, but my prose comes nowhere near yours, James.

Reply

Enter your comment here…

totanaca: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. (Log Out)

♣ Subscribe

♣ Archives

♣ Categories

Child Abuse

♣ Meta

End all physical punishment of children A raging argument has been going on for years over...

Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy.

Richard Collins — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 14:54:31 +0000

Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy. Now imagine helping it spread quickly throughout the world! Child Honouring is one such idea, an idea whose time has come.

We invite you to be a part of the global movement that views honouring children as the best way to create sustainable, peacemaking societies.

Nelson Mandela, The Dalai Lama, Graca Machel are among the growing chorus of luminaries calling for a world fit for children.

The Centre for Child Honouring – on Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada – is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing Child Honouring as a universal ethic, an organizing principle for societal transformation.

Child Honouring is a unique social change revolution, one with the child at its heart. It is a positive vision that stresses “the primacy of early years” as key to activating the powerful potential of our species.

Supporting the Earth Charter and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, A Covenant for Honouring Children is a poetic declaration of our duty to respect children, “to honour their caring ideals as the heart of being human”.

The Child Honouring principles offer a guide for living as conscious beings. They constitute the basis for a multi-faith consensus on societal renewal.

At this critical point in human history, we invite you to join the Centre’s work to co-create a vast change in the human paradigm.

http://twitwall.com/view/?who=Librehombre

No related posts.

Parents are at a loss to justify forcing their faith on their children

Richard Collins — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:19:36 +0000

A forum participant writes:

Richard’s original proposition that children are being “forced” by their parents to blindly accept religion has been discounted by multiple participants. If all of those replies don’t at least partially satisfy the question, then the question isn’t legitimately looking for an answer. Or it’s trying to force a particular answer, which makes it something other than a question.

+++++++++++++

I agree that many of the faithful have offered justifications. I assure you I am looking for answers that are more satisfying than the ones offered. We have explained why we say parents are forcing their children to adopt a chosen religion and the mechanisms they use. The temporal justifications really seem to come down to: tradition, the considered legal approval of the state (at least here in the USA), a desire to raise law abiding and respectful children, and the mundane problem of what to do with children while parents participate in their chosen rituals. The mystical dogmatic reasons have absolutely no consequence in a secular society, and like it or not the United States is founded on secular principles. To say one has a strong regard for their religion and that they find it meets all their needs and therefore it is what is right for their children does not satisfy at all. We have elaborated the reasons why children deserve a shot at choosing for themselves. Principally because our laws and doctrines say that important life decisions belong to the person who must live with the consequences. Forcing faith on your children is an anomaly.

I’ll grant you where to park the kids on the day you worship presents problems, but they are maybe not all that insurmountable. Leaving them in the SUV with the windows rolled up would seem unwise, that is for sure. But why not make a reciprocal agreement with another family that has a different day to worship? Just a suggestion. You babysit their kids for them and they do likewise for you. Problem solved! Or, why don’t the institutions provide “religion-free childcare zones” where children can stay for a few hours on-site.

What to tell the children? How about: mommy and daddy are doing adult things right now, you’ll understand when you get older. Same answer you use when you go in the bedroom and lock the door, or refuse to serve them beer. Religion really is an adult pursuit, don’t you think?

If nothing else, I would say this discussion is raising issues and asking people to challenge their assumptions that they may not have done otherwise. If we accomplish just that much, is the conversation not worthwhile? There is always the possibility that a differently configured Supreme Court might reverse some of the decisions that have tilted the balance too far towards the alleged rights of parents. Indeed in the strict language of the law, the very doctrine that parents have parental rights is open to challenge. I have stated why childhood indoctrination is morally abominable if the reason is to insure the continuance of a religious sect.

Instead of the present emphasis on parent’s rights, a new doctrine stressing children’s rights would assign to parents the privilege of making decisions in the interests of their children. Parents would not have an absolute right and the privilege could be revoked when parents abused their position. Same as with a driver’s license. Privilege implies a conditional situation. Note: the words “rights” and “priviledge” have very closely defined meanings in the law.

Demagogues on the right and their radio-mouth echo chambers have lately started blatantly and defiantly proclaiming that children are the property of their parents to do with as they please. Well, no they are not chattel. We managed to free women from the status of chattel, and human rights workers are keen to free children next. For this reason, parents may favorably regard this discussion as a way to understand what may be coming in the future. They may also start looking at the secular countries of Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand for a glimpse of this future. Children should be able to file divorce proceedings against their parents. That is one option for battered wives. Why not for battered brow beaten children?

Children’s right to secular, liberal education (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Religions use cult indoctrination techniques (endhereditaryreligion.com)

No related posts.

Lebanese Youth to Bring Down Confessional System

Richard Collins — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:55:48 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Protests sweeping the Middle East have given new impetus to Lebanese youths who have launched their own revolt on Facebook in a bid — albeit improbable — to bring down Lebanon’s confessional system.

Using slogans popularized by protesters in Tunisia and Egypt, several pages urging the Lebanese to bring down the Mediterranean country’s confessional “regime” or calling for a “day of wrath” against confessionalism, corruption and poverty have appeared recently on the social networking site.

“Lebanese youths, rise up against the oppression of this regime,” writes Mahmoud al-Khatib on www.facebook.com/lebrevolution, which has attracted more than 10,000 friends.

But observers and those behind the initiative say they are well aware that changing the system, in which most government and other posts are attributed according to religion rather than merit, will be a hard-won battle.

“The Lebanese are always boasting about their freedom and democracy as compared to other Arab countries,” said Hassan Chouman, a 24-year-old computer analyst in favor of change.

“But Arab countries each have one dictator whereas we have at least seven or eight,” he added, referring to the political leaders that rule in Lebanon and who represent the country’s various Christian and Muslim communities.

Contrary to other countries in the Middle East, Lebanon’s system of government is rooted in a 1943 power-sharing agreement adopted after the country won its independence from France.

Aimed at maintaining a balance between the 18 religious sects, the agreement calls for the president to be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister to be a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of parliament a Shiite Muslim.

Other government jobs are also allocated according to religious affiliation.

“In Lebanon, competence doesn’t stand for much,” said Ghassan al-Azzi, political science professor at Lebanese University. “The leader of each community appoints members of his clan to top posts which renders our public administration rotten.”

And changing such a system is a bigger challenge than bringing down a dictator, he said.

“Here in Lebanon, if you hold street protests, it is not clear who it would target, which institution, which group. There is nothing tangible,” Azzi added.

Religion plays such a major part in all aspects of Lebanese society that even secular politicians are forced to join the system if they wish to survive, he noted.

One Facebook message put it bluntly: “This movement is bound to fail unless each confession brings down its own leader,” it said.

Antoine Messarra, a member of the Constitutional Council, said change will not come through a revolution in Lebanon but rather step by step, through education and better ties between the state and its citizens.

“We shouldn’t settle for promises but must address the problem methodically,” he said.

But for some, the current wave of upheaval in the Arab world is reason to hope that change is possible, despite deep divisions in the country pitting a pro-Western camp against a Hezbollah bloc backed by Iran and Syria.

“The lesson to be drawn from the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia is that we must put aside all our differences in favor of a common objective,” said Abu Reem, 39, administrator of the Facebook page titled “the Lebanese people want to bring down the confessional system.”

He said an open meeting would be held on March 6 in Beirut to plot out the next move after his page garnered more than 10,000 admirers.

“Nothing is impossible, even if it’s a long road ahead,” Abu Reem said.(AFP)

Lebanese On Facebook Seek Change, Not Revolution (allfacebook.com)
Hundreds protest Lebanon’s ‘sectarian’ government (sfgate.com)
Hundreds protest Lebanon’s ‘sectarian’ government (foxnews.com)
Hundreds protest Lebanon’s ‘sectarian’ government (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
“Beirut – Hundreds Protest Lebanon’s ‘sectarian’ Government” and related posts (vosizneias.com)
A Tour of Lebanon: A Quick Overview of The Nation of Lebanon, Plus a Recipe for Hommus as Lagniappe (trifter.com)

No related posts.

You cannot end the religious indoctrination of vulnerable children

Richard Collins — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:47:11 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

People argue that parents and religious entities will not cease the practice of preying on vulnerable children to maintain their tribes. Religious indoctrination of children has been going on for centuries and is a universal phenomenon. Like child battering, it is a syndrome protected by an extensive protective meme complex. Parents were most likely indoctrinated, making them excellent practitioners of childhood religious grooming. They know all the techniques and evasions to use on their own kids. Likewise, adults who were physically punished will strenuously defend this cruel treatment and turn around and physically punish their own children.

Changing the status quo may be difficult, but let’s not diminish the power of an idea whose time has come. Women’s advocates met a lot of nay saying when they set out to end violence against women in the home and sexism in the work force. The battles are not completely over, but the status of women has greatly improved over the last several decades.

One factor that has helped is the strategy of encouraging intervention by compassionate witnesses who can see what is happening to a battered wife. The same thing will happen with children who are being forced into a religious practice. An older sibling or a rogue cousin, friend, aunt or uncle, who sees the light, will quietly take the child aside and explain that god is pretend in the same way that Superman, the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause are pretend. After reading them some stories from a book about myths, the child will have some intellectual ammunition. Kids as young as 7 or 8 figure out on their own that the entire religious edifice is a giant house of cards. However, they soon learn not to voice their opinions on what they have been told.

Once the seed of skepticism is planted it becomes harder and harder to maintain a facade of religious belief and the reality that religion is merely a social control mechanism becomes really evident. Just spend some time reading the personal narratives of people who have escaped the trap. Without doubt they all describe a moment of absolute clarity when it all made sense why the answers to their questions were so evasive or stood on such false logical ground. Why there were so many roadblocks to autonomy and self determination placed in their path.

Atheist and Humanist public educational campaigns in public spaces such as public transportation and billboards are also a tactic to reach young children. The goal is to explain there is an alternative to what they are being sold. Secular people have a moral imperative to spread the truth about childhood religious indoctrination, because no one else will and secularists represent the largest body of people who have examined religion with a jaundiced eye. Secularists possess the knowledge to push back against the fallout that is sure to come. Survey after survey shows that atheists know more about religion than believers.

The taboo against intervening in “sacred” family matters broke down over wife battering, and it will succumb again to advocates working to end child religious grooming. The current practice is grossly unethical and unwise because it can produce mental problems in certain susceptible youngsters. For some children the brutal horror story that lies at the heart of Christianity gives them nightmares. Islam still retains male chauvinism and rigid patriarchy that destroys the self esteem of girls and women not to mention making them sexual slaves. Fortunately most progressive churches have banished the gruesome crucifixion statues to a dusty warehouse. For shame they ever hung those revolting objects in their auditoriums.

Salvation is not a legitimate argument for indoctrinating children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Who Cares About Atheists? (camelswithhammers.com)
Quiverfull Atheists (dangeroustalk.net)
Questions for Those Raising Their Kids Without Religion (atheistrev.com)
Indoctrinating Children In a Religious Faith is Abusive (atheistrev.com)
“Aha!” Moments (new.exchristian.net)

No related posts.

Children as property of parents

Richard Collins — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:43:55 +0000

Historically, children were considered the property of parents. Under the scheme of patriarchy wives and children are under the control of the family head, the husband of the family. Much of this hoary antiquated thinking is still promoted by far right conservatives and the vestiges of ancient thinking die hard.

Today, children are persons in their own right and modern progressives recognize the personhood of children. Children have the right to grow up free of debilitating dogmatic superstitious thinking. Instead parents and communities must encourage children to think critically and determine their own path through life to suit themselves.

Authoritarian parents view the autonomy of children as threats to their antiquated way of life. Anachronistic groups like the dominionist inspired and led Parentalrights.org want to seal off the family from the state to avoid heretical ideals like children’s rights or the emancipation of women creeping in. They advocate a constitutional amendment to protect what they call parental rights, but are really restraints aimed at the protection of the antiquated system of patriarchy. This is why they emphasize the taboo of non-interference in family matters (a strong meme). The goal is really to keep patriarchy going and ward off any progressive moves that would liberate wives and children.

No related posts.

You have to put your hands together

Richard Collins — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:43:40 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

Pray

We had a lovely gentle chat today,
about being unknowingly led to pray.

“You have to put your hands together,
hold them up like this. Say thank you,
to ..a mystified look.. for the food we eat.”

My son is only four, he does not properly know
how to say the word ‘God’ or ‘Lord’ let alone know
what it means – why ever should he know?

I say to him as he shows to me,
it is just a thing you do in school,
a quiet time. A time to join in,

… but to think for yourself.

Take that time, as I used to in school
to quietly think for myself.

Quietly, calmly – every day.

It tastes insidious. Positively poisonous -

To the loving of all of life …

I tell him about all the dinosaurs, animals, the sharks,
fossils and his poster of the “Tree of Life” topped

by a man … Charles Darwin.

Are we, two-ways, drawing a child’s keen attention
across a forever riven world? So it is and so it is, all ways
given to all – ways of knowing, thinking, deeply feeling

revealing. There is no choice, in truth,
rejoicing, praising, singing …

“Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!”

“Claude?” I ask, but he does not know …
… he trusts, as he trusts “Bob the Builder” to be
innocent, educating, exuberant and funny, only words.

He does not know.

I explain that ‘some people’ look up to a someone -
a kind of person or man … a “god” – up in the sky.
A man who made everything, who looks down on us
and everything – and who looks after all things.

I tell him his Baba does not agree, or believe in this man,
that he does not need to worry or take it too seriously,

there is no big plan or anyone looking over,
no laws or orders from anywhere other than ourselves.

So, just take that nice quiet time

to think to yourself,

find out,

and think for yourself.

by Gareth Rosser

Thanks Gareth for permission to publish your work. You can read more of this poet’s work here:

http://www.garethrosser.com/

No related posts.

Scientific literature on religion and child abuse

Richard Collins — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:53:21 +0000

Help us build a reference list of scientific studies linking religion and child abuse. Is there such a thing as religious inspired child abuse? Add the citations below in the comments section, please.

Bottoms, B. L., Shaver, P. R., Goodman, G. S., & Qin, J. (1995). In the name of God:
A profile of religion-related child abuse. Journal of Social Issues, 51 (2), 85-111.

Bottoms, B. L., Shaver, P. R., & Goodman, G. S. (1996). An analysis of ritualistic
and religion-related child abuse allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 20 (1), 1-34.

Capps, D. (1992). Religion and child abuse: Perfect together. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 31 (1), 1-14. [ This paper is available on line and worth study, http://bit.ly/8k8Kwf
Abstract
Religious beliefs can foster, encourage, and justify child abuse, yet religious motivations for child abuse and neglect have been virtually ignored in social science research. In this paper, we compare victims' retrospective reports of religion-related child physical abuse to other reported cases of child physical abuse. We describe in statistical detail the nature and circumstances of the abuse, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, and the spiritual and psychological impact of the abuse. Results indicate that although the basic characteristics of religion-related physical abuse are similar to non-
religion-related physical abuse, religion-related abuse has significantly more negative implications for its victims' long-term psychological well-being

Capps. D. (1995). The child’s song: The religious abuse of children. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press.
Religion and child abu3se1

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). How the experience of early
physical abuse leads children to become chronically aggressive. In Developmental
perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention (Vol. 8, pp. 263-288).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Doxey, C., Jensen, L., & Jensen, J. (1997). The influence of religion on victims of
childhood sexual abuse. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7, 179-186.

Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative Protestantism and support for
corporal punishment. American Sociological Review, 58 (1), 131-145.

Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Segal, M. L. (1996a). Do conservative Protestant
parents spank more often? Further evidence from the national survey of families and
households. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 663-673.

Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Segal, M. L. (1996b). Conservative Protestantism
and the parental use of corporal punishment. Social Forces, 74 (3), 1003-1028.

Flynn, C. P. (1996). Normative support for corporal punishment: Attitudes,
Religion and child abu3se2
correlates, and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1 (1), 47-55.

Correlates of multiple forms of victimization in religion-related child abuse cases. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 2, 273-295. [Reprinted in B. B. R. Rossman & M. S.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39,
202-221.

Greven, P. (1991). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the
psychological impact of physical abuse. New York: Knopf.

Hunsberger, B. (1989). A short version of the Christian orthodoxy scale. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 360-365.

Jackson, S., Law, L., Thompson, R.A., Christiansen, E. H., Colman, R. A., & Wyatt,
J. (1999). Predicting abuse-prone parental attitudes and discipline practices in a
nationally representative sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23 (1), 15-29.

Johnson, B. W., & Eastburg, M.C. (1992). God, parent and self concepts in abused
and nonabused children. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11 (3), 235-243.

Kane, D., Cheston, S. E., & Greer, J. (1993). Perceptions of God by survivors of
childhood sexual abuse: An exploratory study in an underresearched area. Journal of
Religion and child abu3se3

Psychology and Theology, 21 (3), 228-237.

Lawson, R., Drebing, C., Berg, G., Vincellette A., & Penk, W. (1998). The long term
impact of child abuse on religious behavior and spirituality in men. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 22 (5), 369-380.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). An ecological-transactional analysis of children
and contexts: The longitudinal interplay among child maltreatment, community violence, and
Religion and child abu3se4
children’s symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 10 (2), 235-257.

Maurer, A. (1982). Religious values and child abuse. Child & Youth Services, 4, 57-
63.

Malcarne, V. L., & Burchard, J. D. (1992). Investigations of child abuse/neglect
allegations in religious cults: A case study in Vermont. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
10(1), 75-88.

Maxfield, M. G., & Widom, C. S. (1996). The cycle of violence: Revisited six years
later. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 150, 390-395.
.
Nelsen, H. M., & Kroliczak, A. (1984). Parental use of the threat “God will punish”:

Replication and extension. Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 23 (3), 267-277.

Neufeld, K. (1979). Child-rearing, religion, abusive parents. Religious Education, 74
(3), 235-243.

Pagelow, M. D., & Johnson, P. (1998). Abuse in the American family: The role of
religion. In A. L. Horton & J. A. Williamson (Eds.), Abuse and religion: When praying isn't
enough. (pp. 1-12).

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religious coping. New York: Guilford.
Pelcovitz, D., Kaplan, S., Goldenberg, B., & Mandel, F. (1994). Posttraumatic stress
disorder in physically abused adolescents. Journal of American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 33 (3), 305-312.

Quas, J. A., Bottoms, B. L., & Nunez, N. (Eds.) (2002). Linking Juvenile Delinquency
and Child Maltreatment: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences. Special issue of
Religion and child abuse 5

Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 5(4).
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research
in the general population. Journal of Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Rice, R. R., & Annis, A. W. (1992). A survey of abuse in the Christian Reformed
Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Social Research Center of Calvin College.

Rosenberg, M. J. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Rossetti, S. J. (1995). The impact of child sexual abuse on attitudes toward God and
the Catholic Church. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19 (12), 1469-1481.

Ryan, P. L. (1998). Spirituality among adult survivors of childhood violence: A
literature review. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 30 (1), 39-51.

Sheshkin, D. J. (2000). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical
procedures (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Shor, R. (1998). The significance of religion in advancing a culturally sensitive
approach towards child maltreatment. Families in Society, 79 (4), 400-409.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991).
Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171.

Straus, M. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American
families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Child maltreatment 1998:
Religion and child abu3se6

Wiehe, V. R. (1990). Religious influence on parental attitudes toward the use of
corporal punishment. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 173-186.

James Dobson just has to be responsible for many psycopaths in America (endhereditaryreligion.com)
We can't afford to abandon the children who are suffering from domestic violence (telegraph.co.uk)
Child abuse drops dramatically in U.S. (msnbc.msn.com)

No related posts.

You do not have to take your children to church

Richard Collins — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:01:16 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

There is a presumption that children must be taken to church. This presumption is based on centuries old tradition and the full backing of religious institutions that rely on new converts to keep their faith alive down through the ages.

Morally this is reprehensible because it treats vulnerable children as instruments. Treating others as objects or as instruments to satisfy a desire has been recognized by moral philosophers as repugnant since the days of Kant. Why are children any different? What makes it morally OK to treat children as instruments in a scheme to promote a certain brand of faith?

Secondly, the notion that a child who does not like the faith you chose for them will suddenly recover at age 18 from 15 years of being subjected to a deliberate mind control program is simply risible. There is no reset switch you can press to set a child’s brain back to it’s pristine state at age three. In fact, brain scientists have shown that the brain is actually changed physically by early learning (age 3 to 7). Those changes to the brain are extremely difficult to overcome. Logically, childhood is actually the longest stage in our lives because we retain the memories of childhood for a lifetime.

Do people break the locks on their religious cage? Yes, but usually at great emotional cost. Sometimes people suffer anxiety and depression for years as they break away and recover from religion. Family relations can be stretched to the breaking point.

Personal narratives tell the story of “making up their own minds”. Poignant accounts can be found all over the web at recovery sites established by people seeking mutual aid and comfort. Every faith and sect is represented. The biggest sites look to be for Catholics, Mormons, and Pentecostals.

Is this news to people reading this article and will it shape your thinking about hereditary religion?

Religion and The age of Consent (endhereditaryreligion.com)
Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms (endhereditaryreligion.com)

No related posts.

End Hereditary Religion » Secularism

Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead

Share this:

Like this:

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “The Debate on Spanking is Dead”

Leave a Reply

♣ Subscribe

♣ Archives

♣ Categories

♣ Meta

Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy.

Parents are at a loss to justify forcing their faith on their children

Recommended reading

Product Description

Lebanese Youth to Bring Down Confessional System

You cannot end the religious indoctrination of vulnerable children

Children as property of parents

You have to put your hands together

Scientific literature on religion and child abuse

You do not have to take your children to church

End Hereditary Religion » Secularism

Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead

Share this:

Like this:

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “The Debate on Spanking is Dead”

Leave a Reply

♣ Subscribe

♣ Archives

♣ Categories

♣ Meta

Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy.

Parents are at a loss to justify forcing their faith on their children

Related articles

Recommended reading

Product Description

Related articles

Lebanese Youth to Bring Down Confessional System

Related articles

You cannot end the religious indoctrination of vulnerable children

Related articles

Children as property of parents

You have to put your hands together

Scientific literature on religion and child abuse

Related articles by Zemanta

You do not have to take your children to church

Related articles by Zemanta