|
Post by Sierra on Feb 14, 2010 18:31:53 GMT -5
Doggie, I appreciate your anger and compassion for the children, but these parents are not evil. They are abused and manipulated themselves and they probably think they are doing the very best thing for that girl's soul. Very likely, they were abused as children without it ever being acknowledged, so this all feels ok to them. They probably are trying to save their daughter from being ruled by her own selfish will or the devil. Please don't think I am defending their abuse. I am, however, defending their intentions. Sick as this is, I believe that they think they are doing the right thing by their child. of course they they think they are doing good. but seep in side I bet they know they are not that's why is is so bad. at least the child lived. here in Oregon there is a church who's members only believe in prayer and laying on of the hands to heal. well the parents of a little girl (less then 2 years old) died and the parents were brought up on charges though they got off on a misdemeanor charge. but even worse that little girls grandparents killed their own son who was 16. they were just found guilty some of the worst evil done in history was done in the name of god. this does not excuse it or make the people who chose this less evil. I agree with musicmom. It's tragic what happened to all of these children. We should be angry about the abuse they have suffered and are suffering. But condemning the parents as "evil" does not help to eradicate the system that perpetuates abuse. I believe that most, if not all, humans are capable of abuse if fully convinced that they are doing what's right. Searching out the systemic roots of the problem is not about defending or 'excusing' the parents for abusing or killing their children. It means starting from the premise that they were first ordinary, reasonable human beings before they became abusive, and understanding the factors that led them into abusive behavior. By doing this, we stand a much better chance of educating future parents to prevent the situation from repeating itself. Take, for example, Andrea Yates. Is it more helpful to publicly denounce her as the mythical incarnation of evil, or to understand that the pressures she faced from her existing mental condition and the strain of bearing and raising more children than she could handle caused her to snap? The latter can help us save more women (and their children) from a similar fate. The former just encourages blanket 'good vs. evil' thinking - which is merely part of the fundamentalist worldview that encourages abuse. (Edit: forgot a preposition.)
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 14, 2010 18:39:58 GMT -5
Sierra,
Excellent post!!!
It is so much easier to project our own anger and rage upon the perpetrators rather than stretch and try to have compassion with them (not saying that's what Doggie was doing, btw) and trying to learn how this all happened.
Despite not being a Christian anymore, I still do believe "there but for the grace of God go I....." when thinking about these types of situations. Meaning, under the same circumstances and facing their challenges, I might have done the exact same thing. We are all human beings - cut from essentially the same cloth and subject to the same temptations.
Like Sierra said, if we can't somehow wrap our brains around HOW people could choose to do things like this, we won't have a hope in preventing the same things from happening again. It's just too easy to call them evil and just be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 18:53:18 GMT -5
KM - I don't have a blog or anything, so however you want to refer to it is fine. Post a link to your blog - I would love to see it. Okay, sure, here: http://elizakeepsbees *dot* wordpress *dot* com/ Vyckie has linked the post as well.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 19:00:49 GMT -5
In a way, the urge to go overboard with labels like "Quiverful," might lead to more "mainstream" fundamentalist parents feeling a sense of false security -- when really, as Kisekileia points out, Dobson is mainstream Evangelical, and he advocates disciplining with weapons as well. It's possible, but I don't understand QF as merely referring to refusal to use birth control, so maybe we're just using the terms differently. I also think there's a political dimension (influenced by Dominionism) in much of what we call the Quiverfull movement (with the possible exception of some Mennonite and Amish-influenced communities who refuse to be involved in the secular political system.). In any case, these families do seem to fall along some kind of spectrum of extremism, and I'm not sure that refusal to use birth control is the only thing that situates them on the extreme Right. In any case, I'm not going to change the post title. As I state there, I put it out there as a question and not as a definite assertion. It was, at minimum (especially now that we know about the exorcism), a fundamentalist family.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 19:16:07 GMT -5
Ack... I started out by addressing this to Sierra (I got mixed up in the thread, then realized it was by music mom, so I've revised accordingly...). I appreciate your anger and compassion for the children, but these parents are not evil. They are abused and manipulated themselves and they probably think they are doing the very best thing for that girl's soul. Very likely, they were abused as children without it ever being acknowledged, so this all feels ok to them. They probably are trying to save their daughter from being ruled by her own selfish will or the devil. Please don't think I am defending their abuse. I am, however, defending their intentions. Sick as this is, I believe that they think they are doing the right thing by their child. I'm mostly someone who rails against the Prison Industrial Complex, but frankly...? I have to say I'm with Doggie here. Childhood abuse is usually considered a mitigating factor in death penalty trials, but this is not one of those, and... It probably won't factor into the situation. And, beyond that? I'm glad it won't. I have absolutely no sympathy for these people. I *do* believe that people who abuse children know what they're doing--and often enjoy what they're doing. Maybe they think it's *good* for the child, I don't know. I honestly can't think what would make me have *more* compassion for them. Isolated psychopathy or psychopathy encouraged and facilitated by Quiverfull teachings? People who hurt children are the people I have no sympathy for (And I say this as someone who has worked closely in the criminal justice system and who very nearly made a career out of working as a mitigation specialist on behalf of death row inmates. Because I wanted to help some of society's most maligned prisoners have access to fair trials--and because most people on death row are people who have been abused by the system for their entire lives.) But people who hurt young kids? Especially people who do it systematically? Yeah, no. Having suffered abuse and knowing so many others who have... No sympathy from me. I wanted to make that clear. I do feel that you're giving them something of a "free pass." As someone sort of steeped in poststructuralist theory, I don't know that I believe in dichotomies like "good and evil." But, yeah, honestly? There are some crimes that I think are unforgivable, and some things that I simply cannot summon compassion for. I agree that QF communities are often abusive, and I think there may be some structural correlations between this kind of abuse and QF teachings about "Bible-based discipline." That said, the parents did what they did, and I hope they're held fully accountable to full extent of the law and never have children in their care ever again. Ever. And I'd probably have some more choice words about them back at my own blog (not toward you, just them), but I'll hold back on account of...this being Vyckie's space and all. Anyway, I wanted to be clear about where I stand since I wrote that post. Child abuse is, honestly, the one crime in which I get...a bit hawkish about stamping out crime.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 19:29:29 GMT -5
I agree with musicmom. It's tragic what happened to all of these children. We should be angry about the abuse they have suffered and are suffering. But condemning the parents as "evil" does not help to eradicate the system that perpetuates abuse. I believe that most, if not all, humans are capable of abuse if fully convinced that they are doing what's right. Searching out the systemic roots of the problem is not about defending or 'excusing' the parents for abusing or killing their children. It means starting from the premise that they were first ordinary, reasonable human beings before they became abusive, and understanding the factors that led them into abusive behavior. By doing this, we stand a much better chance of educating future parents to prevent the situation from repeating itself. Take, for example, Andrea Yates. Is it more helpful to publicly denounce her as the mythical incarnation of evil, or to understand that the pressures she faced from her existing mental condition and the strain of bearing and raising more children than she could handle caused her to snap? The latter can help us save more women (and their children) from a similar fate. The former just encourages blanket 'good vs. evil' thinking - which is merely part of the fundamentalist worldview that encourages abuse. (Edit: forgot a preposition.) Honestly, I feel differently about Andrea Yates--because she suffered from Post-Partum Depression and because a long history of systemic abuse and torture of children was never reported. So, yes, I feel differently. Not a free pass, but what she did fundamentally different from long time torture. As far as demonization goes, though, I'm all for demonizing these parents. There's a place for philosophical speculation about the Milgram experiments and the banality of evil, but honestly? Sometimes I just think we need to be able to have our emotional responses to tragedies like this. And we need to be able to call them "evil" if that's what we're feeling. Sometimes, maybe that's what some of us need to keep making the world go on, or something. All I know is that my retributive senses get all up in arms over stories like this. In terms of the parents? I'm less concerned about their inner turmoil than I am with that of the child. This is all speculation, but certain demographics of children are often targeted for abuse. Others have already noted that she was a stepchild. But there may have been other factors as well. How must gender non-conforming children fare in families like these? Or children with various developmental disabilities? Children along the autism spectrum? These are all groups who are routinely targeted for abuse within the larger secular word. How must they fare in families that are both dogmatic and abusive?
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 19:34:07 GMT -5
It is so much easier to project our own anger and rage upon the perpetrators rather than stretch and try to have compassion with them (not saying that's what Doggie was doing, btw) and trying to learn how this all happened. I agree about the importance of finding out how this happened and understanding the underlying structural causes, but yeah... A lot of people here have suffered abuse, some of which was encouraged (and became worse) once their spouses became entrenched in QF. Would anyone dare to ask that they show "compassion" to their abusers here? No no no. Compassion is a personal decision. And compassion is also something that oppressed people are too often pressured into providing. I just...really don't agree with this line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 14, 2010 19:50:56 GMT -5
Take, for example, Andrea Yates. Is it more helpful to publicly denounce her as the mythical incarnation of evil, or to understand that the pressures she faced from her existing mental condition and the strain of bearing and raising more children than she could handle caused her to snap? The latter can help us save more women (and their children) from a similar fate. The former just encourages blanket 'good vs. evil' thinking - which is merely part of the fundamentalist worldview that encourages abuse. Bolding mine. Sierra, I agree with everything you've said. I didn't mean to come across like I thought it was totally irrelevant whether or not the family was QF. I think if that was a factor, it could definitely have added to the stress of the situation and put the children at greater risk for abuse. You're right, KM, QF is not just about not using birth control. I don't use birth control, I've been open to having as many children as God gives me (I didn't marry 'til 35, and now, at 45, I have 2 girls ages 9 and 4) -- but I've been realizing that I've never exactly been QF. Because I'm not a dominionist. I just love kids. Honestly, though I can understand the common response of feeling no compassion for child-abusers, and wanting them to suffer. suffer. suffer -- whenever I hear people talking like this (and, yes, I've talked like this myself in the past), it really comes off as people looking down their noses at those who are so far beneath them. I feel like the only valid reason for discussing cases like this, is a genuine interest in, as Sierra said, "understanding the factors that led them into abusive behavior" in order to ultimately "(educate) future parents to prevent the situation from repeating itself."
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 14, 2010 19:59:05 GMT -5
A lot of people here have suffered abuse, some of which was encouraged (and became worse) once their spouses became entrenched in QF. Would anyone dare to ask that they show "compassion" to their abusers here? No no no. Compassion is a personal decision. And compassion is also something that oppressed people are too often pressured into providing. I just...really don't agree with this line of thinking. But nobody here is advocating pressuring oppressed people into showing compassion for their oppressors! You're absolutely right that compassion is a personal decision. However, you seem to be saying that people deciding to look compassionately at Scott and Andrea Bates, are giving them a "free pass." You don't agree with their/our personal decision to use compassion. An online discussion about a public abuse case, is not the same as a discussion with the actual child or children who have been abused in this case. If this were a thread started by the abused 14-year-old girl, I feel sure that you'd see people responding to the girl's posts and focusing on her feelings -- not posts directing her as to how she should feel about her abusers. This is a discussion of a case -- not a discussion with the abused children in this case.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 20:25:07 GMT -5
I feel like the only valid reason for discussing cases like this, is a genuine interest in, as Sierra said, "understanding the factors that led them into abusive behavior" in order to ultimately "(educate) future parents to prevent the situation from repeating itself." I think it's important to isolate certain factors and situations that may make child abuse more likely. Which is mostly another way of saying what you said. I also think it's important to speak out against people (including individuals) and teachings that perpetuate and advocate child abuse. And I'm relatively okay with feeling that I'm better than child torturers, yes.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 14, 2010 20:26:07 GMT -5
I would venture to say that many of us on this board have endured some kind of abuse - from severe to mild - in our childhoods. I believe it's fairly impossible to escape it completely. Obviously, this case is much more severe than most. But child abuse is an epidemic, systemic problem in our culture, I believe. MOST parents hurt their children in ways they don't even understand. Most of our parents spanked us when we were children and thought nothing of it. Yet, some of us WERE scarred and hurt by it. We were hurt by their words when they thought they were just helping us to be better people.
I think that you are taking these people - who admittedly are on the extreme end of the spectrum - and heaping all of society's collective child abuse sins upon them. We are ALL guilty of it in some degree. We do it to our kids until we are healed and educated because we don't know any better.
And for the record:
Of course these people should be held accountable for what they have done. And of course, their daughter should be protected, affirmed and allowed to experience the full range of feelings and healing without having to feel sympathy for her parents.
But it's not going to do any service to the daughter, I don't think, to demonize her flesh and blood. She feels herself to be PART of them - no matter how cruel they have been. Ask any mom who's walked the thin line of speaking the truth without maligning her ex-husband in front of her kids. The kids feel they are a part of the dad, no matter how "evil" he has been. It hurts them to condemn either parent. We could do much more harm implying that they are spawn of the devil.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 20:36:51 GMT -5
You don't agree with their/our personal decision to use compassion. Then I think we're having a misunderstanding. I'm okay with someone's individual decision to show compassion. I am uncomfortable with what feel like lectures being directed at doggie and me because we disagree. It's possible that I'm reading tone incorrectly here, but I have now seen multiple posts exhorting doggie about the wrongness of labeling individual humans as "evil." And my thing is more... I don't feel we're being allowed to disagree. Also, while I recognize that one cannot control the direction of thread, I'd sort of hoped not to get entrenched in a debate like this one--and to have more information-sharing here. My post was more of a call for information and media transparency and a question about why no one is really talking about this. Since I wrote the individual post (which does try to point to structural issues that may have influenced the abuse), I also wanted to be clear that I'm not coming from a mainstream Christian worldview that emphasizes the primacy of compassion. I'm far more justice-oriented wrt this case, and much, much more concerned with the children caught in these kinds of situations than the parents. I'd also like to examine the question (which I've seen come up on some news sites) about whether homeschooling might provide a sort of...hiding place for abusive families in which children are not being examined by public school teachers who are required to report suspicious bruises/injuries/behavior to Child Protective Services. So, my question isn't... Does homeschooling just provide a safe haven for abusers? That's too simplistic, and I do insist that I don't see homeschooling as inherently pathological. Rather... Does homeschooling provide something of a cover for parents who are already prone to abuse? Or is this a danger? If so, what would be some ways to regulate this kind of thing such that parents *couldn't* isolate children to the extent that *no one notices when one has been imprisoned in a closet for two months.*
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 20:48:44 GMT -5
I would venture to say that many of us on this board have endured some kind of abuse - from severe to mild - in our childhoods. I believe it's fairly impossible to escape it completely. Obviously, this case is much more severe than most. But child abuse is an epidemic, systemic problem in our culture, I believe. MOST parents hurt their children in ways they don't even understand. Most of our parents spanked us when we were children and thought nothing of it. Yet, some of us WERE scarred and hurt by it. We were hurt by their words when they thought they were just helping us to be better people. I think that you are taking these people - who admittedly are on the extreme end of the spectrum - and heaping all of society's collective child abuse sins upon them. We are ALL guilty of it in some degree. We do it to our kids until we are healed and educated because we don't know any better. And for the record: Of course these people should be held accountable for what they have done. And of course, their daughter should be protected, affirmed and allowed to experience the full range of feelings and healing without having to feel sympathy for her parents. But it's not going to do any service to the daughter, I don't think, to demonize her flesh and blood. She feels herself to be PART of them - no matter how cruel they have been. Ask any mom who's walked the thin line of speaking the truth without maligning her ex-husband in front of her kids. The kids feel they are a part of the dad, no matter how "evil" he has been. It hurts them to condemn either parent. We could do much more harm implying that they are spawn of the devil. I think this is fair, though I would never venture to guess how she feels about her father (yes, her flesh and blood) and her stepmother (not her flesh and blood). I will say that I routinely wished that someone from Child Protective Services would notice me when I was a child--and that I could be rescued into some--any--other situation. In those times, I couldn't have cared less about my connections to my flesh and blood. I just wanted to escape. I longed for someone in my extended family to recognize the familial abuse and do something about it. So, I'm not going to try to guess how she may or may not feel. I will say that I doubt she'll ever be in their care again--and that I have serious doubts about whether or not they'll even be allowed to see her until she turns eighteen. And I agree that child abuse is an epidemic. And I feel that I can agree with you about that and still hold that abuse exists on a spectrum. And some people are on the extreme end of "guilty" even if all of it is problematic. All of it is wrong, but some of it means you need to be ripped out of your family, and some isn't bad enough for that to be an attractive option. My own parents traversed multiple...points on the spectrum. For the most part, it was not *often* bad enough for me to need outside protection. But when it was at its worst, my life was threatened and I needed to be rescued more than anything else. So, I'm in agreement that there's a spectrum and that all abusers are problematic. But the sadistic torturers are worse. It may come down to a theological difference of opinion between us, but in my case... I'm not going to buy into a "there but for the grace of God" mentality. Or agree with people who enjoin me to see the rightness/correctness of it.
|
|
|
Post by angelreneetn on Feb 14, 2010 21:02:02 GMT -5
Another thing that makes me think the Bass family might be Quiverfull is the fact that they admitted point-blank that they locked her up. Quiverfull fathers-at least mine-did not have anything to be ashamed of in their minds.
|
|
|
Post by kindaconfused on Feb 14, 2010 21:04:21 GMT -5
I think it's important to note that a broad range of fundamentalist teachers urge parents to abuse their children with weapons, not just Quiverfull people. I believe James Dobson advocates it, and he's pretty mainstream evangelical. As a Christian, but not QF/P I feel I must speak up for James Dobson. The only similiarity between JD and Debi Pearl's statement is the advocating of using something other then your hand for a spanking. JD does not advise purchasing 1/4" plumber supply line to keep in your purse or wear around your neck or to widely distribute in every room of the house and vehicle. JD does not advise locking your children and prayer closet or anywhere else for that matter. JD does not advise hitting your child with a metal rod. JD does advocate corporal punishement for clearly defined, specific offenses, he also advocates milder punishement (time-outs) JD also defines spanking as 1 or 2 swats confined to the buttocks area with switch or paddle. I don't know who Debi Pearl is, other then what I have read here. I am guessing she wrote a book? but I don't know how she came to be an expert in child-rearing or Qf/P living to write a book.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 21:12:12 GMT -5
Another thing that makes me think the Bass family might be Quiverfull is the fact that they admitted point-blank that they locked her up. Quiverfull fathers-at least mine-did not have anything to be ashamed of in their minds. Thank you for pointing this out. This is another thing I've kind of been wondering about. On one hand, there seems in QF to be a kind of paranoia about the "outside world." So, you get people like Debi Pearl writing guides about how parents can abuse their kids without being detected by the Secular Humanist Powers that Be, right? I remember hearing my Dominionist friends decry things like the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child because it would "allow the government to raise our children." Really, it's a pretty straightforward and uncontroversial document against things like child labor and child abuse and child trafficking. So, there's the fact that, when confronted, the parents readily admitted what they'd done (There's a sense that they're unashamed). But... There's also this...widespread paranoia about organizations like Child Protective Services. All of the QF people I knew would *hide* their children and lie about their existence to US census takers. They were not allowed to get their drivers licenses or apply for social security cards until they turned 18 because they didn't want the government to know that the children existed. And these were not children who were victims of what we seem to be naming "the most egregious sorts of child abuse." And so, I'm wondering... In the communities... Is there a sense of being unashamed about this kind of stuff while simultaneously recognizing that most of us on the outside consider it a crime? So... When finally confronted, they may not feel that they've done wrong (because the worldview--or some interpretation of it--justifies the abuse), but they also recognize that it's against the law (part of the "conspiracy of secular humanism to take over child-raising," etc.)? Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 21:24:22 GMT -5
And so, I'm wondering... In the communities... Is there a sense of being unashamed about this kind of stuff while simultaneously recognizing that most of us on the outside consider it a crime? So... When finally confronted, they may not feel that they've done wrong (because the worldview--or some interpretation of it--justifies the abuse), but they also recognize that it's against the law (part of the "conspiracy of secular humanism to take over child-raising," etc.)? Thoughts? Er... I'm not saying that everyone is like this either. Just wondering if others have noticed it within the community? I'm also curious if people are aware of pastor/church-endorsed forms of child and wife abuse? I know that Erika has alluded to it in some of her posts. But, basically, I'm wondering... Are any of you aware of behavior roughly equivalent to, say, Warren Jeffs of the FSDS encouraging child rape and being held legally accountable? (Not necessarily asking about child rape, but more generally about abuse.) RazingRuth talks about Kaye's involvement in her mother's treatment. What about pastors who are even more involved than this? Pastors who encourage child and wife abuse? Have they ever been--or should they be--held legally accountable for the consequences of the things they promote? I waver a bit here. I'm generally more comfortable with being a first amendment libertarian, *but*... Warren Jeffs is in prison because he encouraged a crime in the context of a controlling/abusive religious environment, and I'm not against that... Should other pastors/religious leaders be held accountable in similar ways? What do people think?
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 21:25:05 GMT -5
Also, not trying to drown people out here. I just have a lot of thoughts about this... I'll shut up for a while, though.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 14, 2010 21:39:42 GMT -5
KM, of course people have a right to speak their opinions, as we all are doing here.
As a homeschooling parent, I have concerns about the idea that cases like this mean there needs to be greater surveilance of ALL homeschooling families.
At the same time, I realize this is rather selfish of me. I know that I'M not locking my children in a bathroom or depriving them of food or any of their needs -- and, so, I rather selfishly don't want to give up any of my family's privacy, even if our loss of privacy really could ensure the safety of all other homeschooling children.
But, the real rub is, I don't really see how it would all get worked out logistically. In states with lots of homeschooling regulations, essentially all that means is doing more paperwork and possibly doing testing, having yearly evaluations, and so on.
Even in the most heavily-regulated states, I don't see how yearly testing really protects kids from getting abused?
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 22:04:00 GMT -5
Even in the most heavily-regulated states, I don't see how yearly testing really protects kids from getting abused? So, do you have any thoughts about what kinds of mechanisms *could* protect against these kinds of abuses? I hear what you're saying about bureaucratic processes seeming hollow and generally being far from, well, transformative, but... Is there anything that can be done? Also, do you think what I'm surmising could be right--that, in fact, homeschooling really does provide a safe cover for some parents seeking to isolate their children in order to abuse them with impunity? Not all, of course, but some? (Recognizing, certainly, that cases of abuse are also overlooked and/or fall through the system wrt public schooled children every day. I'm wondering about homeschooling in particular because I keep seeing these "worst case scenarios" emerge from Gothard/ATI/fundamentalist/possibly-QF homes. I sense that others are also seeing the connection, and am trying to figure out what to make of it.)
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 22:10:46 GMT -5
Also, Susan, yeah, I'm not saying families like yours should be under more surveillance. But what would work? You say that you're not really QF, but what about families who are? What about children who are isolated in communities of people who believe that these kinds of discipline are acceptable? How can a fourteen year old be protected from having to escape from a window and riding her bike thirteen miles to the nearest shopping center to get food and contact the cops? Without restricting the freedom of people like you who are not doing something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 14, 2010 22:11:53 GMT -5
Blech... This is why I don't do public policy. I honestly fail to see any good options, you know?
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 14, 2010 22:44:37 GMT -5
KM, I honestly don't see any good options, either.
I think these cases are increasing people's awareness that seemingly-normal families can be abusive.
In a way it's bad (to me) -- because it means that in some people's minds, a "red flag" will pop up anytime they learn that their new neighbors are homeschoolers.
But, of course, it also means that some people will be more likely to call the child abuse hotline if they suspect anything amiss in any home.
But, of course, that kind of depends on neighbors being interested enough to notice stuff.
I actually see this as similar to the "war on terror"-mentality, in that I disagree with us all having to give up our privacy "just in case" one of us might be part of a terrorist group.
But ... child abuse is a lot more prevalent than terrorism. Still, I think giving up our privacy would mean severely lowering our quality of life. I'm not sure where to draw the line.
When I was in social work school in college, one of my fellow students strongly felt that, to protect children, there really needed to be video surveilance of every home -- and I mean INSIDE every home.
She felt that you can't really know what's going on unless you can SEE in the homes, because abusive parents can persuade everyone that they're nice people.
But I just can't imagine living like that.
|
|
|
Post by justflyingin on Feb 15, 2010 2:32:34 GMT -5
So, what is a "fundamentalist" to you? Is it more about doctrine/belief (as in the book "The Fundamentals" published many years ago), or is it about extreme living? Because most self-described biblical fundamentalists don't even recognize what you are talking about. Exorcism? I've never met a person who said they exorcised and I've been part of the Independent Baptist Fundamentalist movement all my life. If you aren't careful, you can go just as overboard in your dealing with these people as those you decry. There are abused people "in the system" of Child protective services even. IOW, you hear about people killing/abusing a foster child--that is killing--not "just" locking them up (as bad as that is!). I'm not sure what group these people come from...I'd call them some sort of a "cult/extreme group" but stay away from the term "fundamentalist" which should be more attached to doctrine and practice and not only really strange, extreme people who don't live like normal people. IOW, I think you call anyone a "fundamentalist" who is strict/high standards of dress, behavior and home school and believe in no b/c. This does not do the word justice. This is also one reason that it no longer means anything to be called a "fundamentalist". The word has been hijacked away from what it meant when it started.. sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalist-challenge-for-21st-century-do-we-have-future-part-2about half way down the front page is a bit about historic fundamentalism...if anyone wants to learn about it. (Just because you are a Gothardite, or a QF or a follow the Pearls doesn't make you a "fundamentalist"). I'm sure Dobson would in no way appreciate being linked with child abuse. He is definitely not FOR abuse. If you try to be the "Star" of the web with sensational stories (this article is based on speculation.) Why don't you do research about their home church before you write a whole article about them and their possibly fundamentalism. ?
|
|
|
Post by doggie on Feb 15, 2010 2:34:44 GMT -5
I think what got me going is the church was right behind the parents. Someone told me they live by the church and it is full of people who have died early. There was a law passed just because this church and how many parents have had children have died early. the sad part is I bet they believe they died nothing wrong. that's where the evil comes into it. when your faith is more important then reality even the lives of your children then your are one very bad puppy. when the church encourages this then the church is just as bad as the parents. www.followersofchristchurch.com/ About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes. it's hard to say of child abuse is worse then ever. it is just more in the news more in the public's face. I bet it was worse all through history but it was ok or better hidden.
|
|