Showing posts with label child protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child protection. Show all posts

7 Apr 2016

A Snapshot of Religion Related Child Abuse From June 2007 to June 2011



A Snapshot of Religion Related Child Abuse From June 2007 to June 2011

Somewhere right now children are suffering because of religious superstition, tradition and dogma

by Perry Bulwer



The first news article in this archive is dated June 6, 2007, the last one June 10, 2011. Those coincidental dates encompassing four years almost to the day were not planned by me. I had no end date or goal in mind when I began this archive, and when I recently decided to stop updating it I had no idea the dates of the first and last article would coincide in that way. But they do, providing a sort of symmetry or framework for this snapshot of child abuse in religious environments. [Update February 2024: After June 2011 I stopped creating new pages in this archive, but I continued to add news articles in the comment sections of existing pages.]

I refer to this archive as a snapshot because it contains specific news articles within a specific time frame, but like a photographic snapshot it captures only those I had a quick opportunity to archive. Obviously, this is not a complete picture of religiously motivated child abuse, but just one small part of it. For each of the more than three thousand articles that appear in this archive there are many more from that same period that are not included. I only added articles I found in the various online newspapers I read everyday, the various email alerts I set up on the subject, or a few times by readers who submitted links to me. I did not otherwise go out of my way to find relevant articles, but just entered articles I easily found, much like the way I take photographs.

Not only were there other relevant articles during that four years that are not included in this archive, I did not add articles published prior to that period except in a few cases where those articles easily came to my attention. For example, Rolling Stone republished online an older article on Scientology in the wake of recent scandals.  Also not in this archive are the numerous, individual stories of religion related child abuse occurring daily around the world that never get reported. See the list below for ways in which millions of children every year are denied their human rights, cruelly mistreated, harmed or killed for religious reasons (for example: every year 3 million girls in Africa alone have their genitals mutilated).  As Carl Sagan wrote, it is a demon-haunted world we live in and somewhere right now children are suffering because of religious superstitions, traditions and dogmas.

Such child abuse is as old as religion itself (it is one of the main ways religion is propagated)  and will be a problem as long as believers and their institutions are afforded privileges and exemptions to indoctrinate and otherwise abuse children. Although a few of the articles here do discuss that ancient history of religious child abuse, and some consider the problem of how to end such abuse in the future, most deal with specific abuses and court cases that occurred during that four year period. So, as I said, this archive is a snapshot, but no less informative for being so. It contains a representative sample of child abuse in all the major religions and some smaller ones, some Judaic, Islamic and Christian denominations and sects, many cults and quasi-religious groups, as well as semi-secular institutions such as the Boy Scouts  and some delinquent teen boot-camps  that are not as overtly religious as most, but contain religious elements.

Although I won't be updating this archive, at least for the foreseeable future, the site will remain open. There is much valuable information here that can be useful in a variety of ways. You can find, for example, specific information on perpetrators and the groups they belong to, tactics and characteristics common to abusive individuals or groups, personal stories about and by abuse survivors and their recovery, information on court cases, contact information for advocacy groups and lawyers, and much more. That is one of the reasons I archived entire news articles rather than just excerpts and links. When I first started I discovered other bloggers and news aggregators focusing on religion, but very often links they provided were dead soon after they were posted, the excerpts they published left out crucial details or the articles quickly disappeared behind firewalls. So, I have archived articles in their entirety and include the link to where I found the article so that all of the information remains available to anyone.

Keeping this archive updated has not been easy. It can be quite depressing reading daily about innocent children who are indoctrinated, mistreated, exploited, assaulted, molested, raped, tortured or murdered, or are denied their human rights, either directly or indirectly because of religion. However, contrary to the popular misconception held by many believers, it is religiously motivated child abuse that depresses me, not the atheistic worldview I now hold, which provides more morality, meaning and purpose to my life than Christianity ever did because it is based on reality. So, that is one reason I'm ending this archive. I cry inside every time I read another story of children suffering because of the religious beliefs of adults. Sometimes I just can't bear to read another one. It's getting too hard on my heart.

Another reason is that it is time consuming. I did not simply skim read each article, I dwelt on them in detail to understand the underlying issues and make connections to similar stories of religious child abuse. But time is the most precious thing anyone has since this life is all we know. There is no second life. I have other projects I need to devote my time to now, but that does not mean I am turning my back on this issue. I will continue to expose religion related child abuse in my own writings on my blog Chain the Dogma when I have some insights or personal experience and knowledge in relation to particular news. It will be sporadic though, not on a daily or weekly basis, at least until I have finished some of those others projects I mentioned. The story of religion and child abuse is a never-ending one, so there will always be more articles that could be added to this archive. In fact, as I was writing the previous paragraph I received a news update on a Hindu Guru from Texas who fled to Mexico after being found guilty of sexually assaulting girls.  I was tempted to add this latest article to the others here on that same story,  but I need to stop somewhere, which means that some of the stories related in these articles have not yet been concluded.

Some stories archived here have concluded and you can find articles covering them from beginning to end. For example, the Elizabeth Smart case concluded with guilty verdicts for her abductors. But no one expects the Catholic clergy crimes scandals to end any time soon. While much abuse has been exposed in North America and Europe, and there are many different legal actions taking place,  it is likely just the tip of the iceberg as clergy abuse in Africa  and Latin America  has received little attention yet. So that is an obvious on-going story.

Other court cases are still continuing as well. Some notable ones are the Canadian constitutional case considering the validity of the law prohibiting polygamy,  which will likely take years to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. Related to that is the Warren Jeffs case  and other Mormon fundamentalist members of the FLDS  (evidence from Jeffs' case in Texas was submitted to the Canadian court hearing the constitutional case).  Like wise, I just read another update on the Tony Alamo case indicating that although he is now in prison and survivors have won civil suits against him, he has successfully hidden much of his ministries assets,  which means those survivors will be fighting legal battles for years to come to get their court-ordered compensation.

Other recent news that just missed my cut-off date for this archive includes reports that a cult leader from Australia, Agape Ministries pastor Rocco Leo Agape, was arrested in Fiji. Articles in this archive report that when he fled Australia several children went missing.  I have not found any reports indicating whether or not those children have been found, but the articles archived here  do provide basic information for anyone interested in doing follow-up research on this continuing story. And just as I was about to publish this article, news arrived that cult leader, Wayne Bent, imprisoned for sex abuse  of girls  has had his conviction overturned on a technicality and will be released from jail. So while this archive will not contain the ending to those and similar stories, it will provide much of the background and make it easier to find follow-up articles.

One way to find articles, besides the search tool, is to use the labels listed at the end of  the side-bar. Unfortunately, there are still several hundred articles in the middle of this archive that do not yet have any label associated with them. Still, the labels can be useful for finding specific groups or specific issues, just use the search tool to find any additional unlabelled articles. Also, for the last year and a half or so I added a Related Articles section at the end of each article. It contains links to other articles in the archive that are either earlier stories on the same subject or similar in some way, making your search much easier. I'll list here those labels dealing with the different ways children are abused and then set out some of the main themes you will find throughout this archive.

These are some of the ways children are abused as reported in the news articles here:


abandonment, abduction, assault, bigotry, child brides, child labour, child sacrifice, child soldiers, child trafficking, circumcision, confinement, corporal punishment, cruelty, discrimination, endangerment, exorcism, exploitation, extremism, forced fasting, forced marriage, hate, honour killing, incest, indoctrination, infanticide, institutional abuse, intellectual abuse, intimidation, isolation, lying, manipulation, manslaughter, medical neglect, molestation, murder, neglect, pedophilia, physical abuse, pornography, prostitution, psychological abuse, racism, rape, ritual abuse, seclusion, secrecy, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, shunning, sorcery, spiritual abuse, suicide, terrorism, torture, totalitarian, vaccination, witchcraft.


Here are a few of the general themes you will find in this archive, with links to a few examples. I'm sure you can find many others. Note that these categories are not exclusive. Much of the abuse reported in this archive fits into two or more of these themes, sometimes all of them.


Education, indoctrination and intellectual abuse:

One of the primary ways in which children's rights are violated in religious environments is by indoctrination. Instead of granting their children the same right to religious freedom that they want for themselves, many parents  indoctrinate  them before they are able to make their own informed decision on whether to believe or not. Young children are also targeted for indoctrination by religious institutions, especially by fundamentalists,  evangelicals,  Catholics  and Anglicans,  but also by cults  like Scientology. The beliefs and doctrines of those groups are so irrational that the best way to get new recruits is to manipulate the minds of children and teens who are unable to defend themselves from lies and superstitions with reason. In my opinion, that is immoral spiritual abuse. The educational rights of children  are also undermined when they are intellectually abused with biblical literalism,  anti-science creationism  or denied the right to attend university.


Physical abuse:

Of course, there is an awful lot of physical child abuse that is not related to religion. Children are easy targets. But it is more than just sad when religion is used to justify assaulting children,  it is immoral  and criminal.  Corporal punishment takes many forms ranging from slaps to torture.  In my opinion, even a slap is an affront to the dignity of a child, or any human for that matter. Spanking children is not necessary. There are better ways to train children than hitting them, so why do believers who claim to have superior morals to those of unbelievers think it is okay to assault vulnerable children? If a slap is ok, why not a punch,  or a beating,  or a whipping,  or water torture,  or other tortures?  Some believers don't know where to draw the line and children suffer or die.  I also include medical neglect  under this theme because it often leads to immense physical suffering   and many times death. Medical neglect includes the failure of parents to protect their children, and consequently other children, from deadly diseases by refusing to vaccinate them.

Sexual abuse:


Sadly, the majority of articles here deal with the sexual abuse of children and teenagers. It will surprise no one that Catholic clergy figure prominently here. Some of the vilest sex abuse you will read in these articles was committed by Catholic priests and nuns. A few examples: the priest who molested or raped around 200 deaf boys; the founder of the influential Legionaires order, Marcel Macial,  who sexually assaulted young seminarians and fathered several children who he also sexually abused; Mother Teresa's failure  to recognize despite many obvious warning signs that her spiritual adviser, an esteemed Jesuit priest,  was a notorious pedophile abusing teen boys in her retreats and nunneries; the priest who raped children in their own homes while their parents were in another room;  the priest who molested girls in the confessional booth and raped hypnotized boys;  priests  and nuns who sexually terrorized aboriginal children in North American  residential schools that were designed to assimilate them; the Belgian bishop who molested his two nephews and then went on TV to justify his actions; and much much more.

Of course, Catholic clergy are not the only ones who sexually abuse children. There are reports here on sexual crimes by clergy of various Protestant  denominations and sects, particularly Baptists, but also by AnglicansAmish,  Assemblies of GodPresbyteriansMennonites,  Mormons,  Jehovah's Witnesses  and others. There also numerous, smaller Christian sects and cults represented here where the leaders committed various sexual crimes against children and teens. Some examples of those include The Family International  previously known as the Children of GodTony Alamo MinistriesWayne Bent's cult; and the House of YahwehHindu gurus  and Buddhist monks are also among the clergy abusers reported here, though not to the extent of other groups. That may be partly because I did not scan newspapers from Asia as often as from other areas.

Much of the sex abuse that occurs in the various groups listed above takes the form of direct assaults in which an offender molests or rapes children. In some, however, the sexual crimes take the form of institutionalized abuse, such as the forced 'marriages' of child brides in groups practising polygamy like the Mormon fundamentalist group FLDS and Tony Alamo Ministries , or the sexualization of children in The Family International. Those three Christian sects practise polygamy and engaged, or still do, in child trafficking for sexual purposes, not unlike what happens in some Muslim  and Hindu  communities. Sometimes those communities are entire nations, which can lead to the bizarre situation in Saudi Arabia where adult women do not have the freedom to marry who they want, but adult males can 'marry' 10 year old girls. Child sex abusers, whether individuals or institutions, often turn to religion for justification. However, dogmas and rituals intended to provide religious respectability do not make forced marriages of children, or any other kind of child abuse, any less a crime.


Psychological and spiritual abuse:


The intellectual, physical and sexual abuses I've discussed so far can also fit into this theme of psychological and spiritual abuse. For example, when a priest or other religious leader rapes or molests a child, it is not just sexually abusive, it is also spiritually abusive because of their religious relationship with the child. And it is psychologically abusive because of the emotional pain and confusion a sexual assault by a trusted authority figure causes. Here is how one woman who was raised in a Mormon fundamentalist community describes it:

In addition to being physically abused, Jensen told the court that she had also been sexually abused as a child in Bountiful. But, voice thick with tears, Jensen said the emotional abuse was worse.
"The unworthiness, the never being good enough, the not having a parent who was accessible to talk to when things happened to you that you couldn't explain it. Even if you had the courage to bring it up, it was disclaimed as God's will. You must have done something wrong.

"It was the self-loathing. The hopelessness of thinking that you're never going to get out and it's never going to get any better so you might as well give up and let them do whatever they wanted to you."

Spiritual abuse also occurs when religious leaders neglect to protect children from abusers and then use denial,  deceit  and secrecy  to cover-up their failures in order to protect their position and institution. Catholic leaders have shuffled known pedophile priests around the globe, lied to or concealed information from congregations about reassigned priests, used the doctrine of mental reservation  to lie about abuse, blamed children for causing their own abuse, asked survivors to swear oaths of secrecy  or sign confidentiality agreements, refused to compensate survivors  unless forced to by courts, used bankruptcies  to hide assets from survivors, and continue to fight legal reforms that would end or extend time limits, which would allow many more survivors of clergy abuse to seek justice and compensation through the legal system. Here is a Catholic describing how she was betrayed by the Catholic hierarchy's neglect and cover-ups:


It is a true test of faith, to try to remain in the Catholic Church knowing all that has happened, not only in Philadelphia but throughout the world, with clergy sex-abuse scandals. It is like everything I once believed, has been turned upside down, inside out.
The trust that has been broken is almost too great, the betrayal runs so deep. As a child, I was taught to look toward the clergy as an example of what is good and holy, and now I find I have had to tell my children to look away.
...
I was taught from a young age that as a Catholic, I needed to be careful to not fall prey to the corruption and evil that exists in the secular world around us. But this time the threat comes from within the church. The problems of the outside world have never shaken my beliefs the way the church itself has done in recent years.
I was also taught to speak out against injustice and all that is wrong, and so I do; however it is against all that I have ever known and believed. So for now, I remain, wanting to walk away, but in doing so feeling like I would be abandoning all that the Catholic Church has destroyed.
I recently used the term “Catholic orphan” to describe my status in the church. I feel I have no leadership, no trust, the hierarchy continues to mislead and tries to put a spin on a vile situation.

It is not just the Catholic hierarchy that has spiritually abused their congregation by failing to protect children from abusers in their midst. MormonsBaptistsOrthodox Jewish groups,  Lutherans,  and many other religious groups have inadequate child protection policies and practices. And it is not just groups, but sometimes entire nations that are unable to protect children from religiously motivated child abuse. Indonesia  is one example, as are several countries in Africa.

There are other kinds of psychological and spiritual abuses that do not involve sexual assaults. For example, many fundamentalist and orthodox beliefs are highly detrimental to children's minds. Creationism,  which also falls under intellectual abuse,  can cause cognitive dissonance in children once they are confronted with scientific facts. Apocalypticism  can cause children to needlessly fear and make irrational decisions. Biblical bigotry can cause children to hate others with different beliefs or no beliefs, the colour of their skin, or their sexual orientation. Or it can teach them to hate themselves if they were born homosexual but taught it is a sin  or that they have a demon that must be exorcisedChild custody disputes involving religion can cause emotional turmoil for children caught up in the conflicts of their parents. Religious exclusivity can isolate children from society.  The practice of shunning leads to the abandonment of children and separation of family members. In fact, all of the abuse covered in this archive has some element of psychological or spiritual abuse.


Ritual abuse:

I apply a very broad definition to the term ritual abuse. Certainly, there are many secular rituals, but they rarely become abusive. One obvious example is the hazing that occurs in college fraternities, military units, sports teams and other groups that initiate new recruits in that manner. Hazing is an inherently abusive ritual, just like some religious rituals, but it is harder to find examples of benign secular rituals used in abusive ways. On the other hand, I can think of many examples of religious ritual abuse.  Some religious rituals are inherently abusive, such as circumcision, while others can be both benign and abusive depending on how they are practiced.

Circumcision is one of the earliest forms of ritual abuse, and one of the most common.  It is similar to baptism in that it spiritually abuses little children who have it forced upon them, but unlike baptism it is also physically abusive. The ritual abuse of circumcision is an infringement of children's rights,  both the rights they hold as children, and their future rights as adults. Children have a right to religious freedom as set out in international human rights law. Religious freedom necessarily includes the right to be free from religion, otherwise it is an empty right, but when children are baptized or circumcised they are denied that right. Children also have an inherent right to an open future so that when they reach the appropriate age they are still free to make their own decisions regarding religion. Circumcision denies that right  even more than baptism, because a baptism can later be renounced whereas circumcision is a permanent mutilation of children's genitals for the sake of their parents' religious beliefs. Where circumcision is not performed as a religious ritual, it is still physically abusive since it is not medically necessary. In that case, it might be seen as another example of an abusive secular ritual. Unlike hazing, however, secular circumcision has deep religious roots.

Praying is a good example of a religious ritual that can be either benign or abusive. Even a seemingly benign ritual like praying can turn extremely abusive when it is used, for example, as a replacement for medical care. Picture a scenario where adults huddle around a child who is suffering immense pain  from an obvious medical problem. They pray fervently for days as the child's condition worsens, yet no one considers getting any kind of medical assistance. They just keep praying until the child dies or suffers irreparable harm. That is a clear case of ritual abuse.

Praying also becomes ritual abuse when it is used to promote hatred and violence. Here is an example of that as expressed by the leader of the bigoted family cult, Westboro Baptist Church, referring to the murder of an abortion provider. (This article is not in the archive)

Fred Phelps praised the shooter and said that he was doing God’s work. Phelps, who ran for political office several times as a Democrat in the 1990s, said, “Congresswoman Giffords, an avid supporter of sin and baby killing, was shot for that mischief…Westboro Baptist Church prays for more shooters...and more dead.”

Assassinating a member of Congress is not enough for another Baptist preacher who prays for the president's death:

Tempe, Arizona Independent Baptist preacher Steven Anderson has recently attracted national media attention after one of his parishioners showed up at an Arizona townhall meeting, that was attended by President Barack Obama, carrying a bullhorn and an AR15 semiautomatic assault rifle. One day before the event, Anderson gave a sermon entitled "Why I hate Barack Obama," in which the pastor declared he was praying for Obama's death and called on God to "melt" the president like a "[salted] snail."

It is not just the act of praying that can be abusive, but objecting to the ritual of prayer can be dangerous. Just ask the teenager in this report, who was demeaned by teachers and fellow students, and shunned by his own parents:

Damon Fowler, an atheist student at Bastrop High School in Louisiana, was about to graduate. His public school was planning to have a prayer as part of the graduation ceremony: as they traditionally did, as so many public schools around the country do every year. But Fowler -- knowing that government-sponsored prayer in the public schools is unconstitutional and legally forbidden -- contacted the school superintendent to let him know that he opposed the prayer, and would be contacting the ACLU if it happened. The school -- at first, anyway -- agreed, and canceled the prayer.
Then Fowler's name, and his role in this incident, was leaked. As a direct result:
1) Fowler has been hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community.
2) One of Fowler's teachers has publicly demeaned him.
3) Fowler has been physically threatened. Students have threatened to "jump him" at graduation practice, and he has received multiple threats of bodily harm, and even death threats.
4) Fowler's parents have cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and thrown his belongings onto the front porch.
Oh, and by the way? They went ahead and had the graduation prayer anyway.

Praying can also be abusive when it is used in exorcisms, whether they are informal rituals  or formalized  ceremonies. Either way, exorcism and everything associated with it is ritual abuse. As with other types of abuses discussed here, ritual abuse can also be categorized under spiritual or physical abuse, both of which occur in faith healings and exorcisms.

Some religious rituals, such as those associated with superstitions like demon possession, Satanism  and witchcraft, can harm children either directly or indirectly. Some children accused of being witches or possessed  are subjected to exorcism rituals and injured or killed in the process, but other children are kidnapped, trafficked, mutilated and killed so their body parts can be used in occult rituals. Child trafficking is also associated with another type of religious ritual abuse in which underage girls, so called child brides,  are 'married' to older men for religious reasons. Corporal punishment can also be used in a ritualistic way, such as when religious authorities beat and humiliate children to make them feel worthless.

Not all religious ritual abuse takes the above forms, however. Sometimes religious rituals are used in sacrilegious ways. Here are a few examples of how priests used the religious ritual of confession to sexually abuse children. One of the Jesuit order's most notorious convicted pedophiles, Donald McGuire, used confession to groom his victims.

According to a sentencing memorandum filed by federal prosecutors after McGuire's conviction, one of his primary means of "grooming" young abuse victims was the ritual of confession.

For example, when the primary victim in the case confessed to McGuire at the age of 13 that he masturbated, McGuire "seized on it" and said the boy had an "addiction" that could send him to hell, according to court documents. He then demanded to "inspect" the boy's penis using a magnifying glass and baby oil.

Brian Spillane, a notorious convicted Australian priest who still faces over 100 charges of child abuse, sexually abused girls in their own homes while their parents were there and raped boys at the school where he taught. Many of his victims said the abuse occurred during prayer sessions, and like McGuire, he also used the ritual of confession to groom his victims.

Molesting girls in the confessional box and raping hypnotised boys was part of a pattern of "rampant pedophilia" by a former priest accused of sexually assaulting youngsters, a Sydney court has been told.

During confession he would invite children as young as eight to sit on his lap. "It was my pastoral approach,'' he told the court, "to break down the barrier between the fearful God and the loving God." One former penitent gave evidence of him holding her tightly on his lap as he nuzzled into her neck. "What I felt was some little kisses."

Italian priest, Ruggero Conti, charged with sexual violence and prostitution involving seven boys, also used the ritual of confession in his crimes.

Earlier at the hearing, Marongiu told the court Conti frequently made advances to him when he was 13 years old in all sorts of places, including in a car and during confession. He said it did not happen in the confessional booth, and that Conti would hear confession anywhere at any time.


Residential Schools, boarding schools, teen detention centres:


Much of the religion related abuse of children reported in this archive occurred in residential or boarding schools maintained by religious institutions. Sometimes these abuses occurred as a result of neglectful oversight in boarding schools for children of missionaries, but most often the abuse was intentionally and systematically directed against institutionalized children. Abusive priestspastorsmonks and nuns had captive children that they not only committed all kinds of physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual abuses against with impunity, but also engaged in cultural assimilation  and class warfare. These institutions destroyed the cultural identities of Indian and Aborigine children or enslaved orphans or the children of the poor. This institutional abuse of innocent, indigenous or indigent children is a national shame for Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia, Germany and any other country where this extremely abusive form of evangelism occurred.

Related to this is the troubled teen industry, where so called delinquent teens are sent to detention centres, boot-camps or other tough love programs that almost always are religious in nature or have some religious elements. As with boarding schools, captive children with no way to escape are hypocritically subjected to cruel abuse in order to indoctrinate them against their will.


Apologetics:


This category could be considered a sub-category of spiritual abuse. There is something particularly vile about religious leaders making excuses and justifications for child abuse. Catholic leaders are very good at that, coming up with all kinds of excuses including blaming victims or society, but rarely taking the blame  themselves for neglecting to protect children. It is never the PopeCardinalsBishops  or Catholic doctrines   that are at fault, but just a few bad apples. That is an excuse common to other religious groups , as are the inadequate apologies that are often offered without corresponding action such as compensating survivors  or ensuring effective child protection policies are in place to prevent future abuse. Those apologies are often expressed in a passive form  such as “mistakes were made”, which deflects accountability away from the abusers and their enablers.

Another despicable type of apologetics is when believers argue for their religious right to discriminate  or abuse children. When they are denied that right they are quick to claim religious persecution. A few examples in this archive include: faith healers  who claim religious freedom to let children die,  fundamentalists who claim religious freedom  to sexually and spiritually abuse little girls in so called marriages, parents who claim religious freedom to beat or mutilate their children, fundamentalists who claim religious freedom to intellectually abuse children, evangelicals who claim religious freedom to convert and indoctrinate children, and so on. Believers who make those claims do not understand the concept of religious freedom, which includes the right to be free from religion,  otherwise it is an empty right.  It means absolute freedom to believe or not believe, but it does not mean absolute freedom to act on those beliefs. Religious freedom does not give anyone the right, including parents, to harm children or deny them their own rights  and religious freedom. And when those same believers claim religious persecution they are blind to the fact that they are religiously persecuting children by denying them their own internationally recognized rights (by all countries except the U.S.  and Somalia). So, claims of religious persecution should be considered skeptically. When fundamentalist Christians, for example, claim religious persecution it is often self serving because the Bible tells them in 2 Timothy 3:12 that if they live godly they will be persecuted. It is a badge of honour, so when they claim to be religiously persecuted they see it as a sign that they must doing something good. However, often the so-called persecuted are in fact the persecutors.



20 Jun 2011

Why Do Children Suffer?



If God is good, omnipotent, compassionate and loving, then why do children suffer?


by Perry Bulwer



This archive of news articles related to child abuse in religious environments demonstrates just how dangerous religion can be to children. The abuses, atrocities and crimes documented in these pages, committed against children in the name of God or gods, ought to give thinking people of faith serious doubts as to the legitimacy of religious or spiritual beliefs that cause or contribute in any way to the suffering of the most innocent, vulnerable humans. It ought to, but it usually doesn't. For example, I was recently contacted by a Christian who demanded that I remove the painting of Abraham sacrificing Isaac that appears in the left side-bar under the title Religious Child Abuse, which I think is an accurate description of what is happening in the painting. This anonymous person wrote to me in response to an article related to Catholic clergy crimes in Ireland:

You need to remove the Abraham Isaac image. It has nothing to do with what has been going on. Christ died for our sins and He has already said that anyone who harms children would be better off with a millstone round his neck and drowned in the bottom of sea. That is His outrage and I am baffled by the lack of connection with Christ in the church. And the lack of fear of God. Knowing of those heinious actions if you truly believed in God would strike terror in your heart.

What astounds me is the failure of believers to recognize that the defining moment of faith for Jews and Christians alike, and I assume Muslims, is Abraham's willingness to sacrifice, i.e., murder, his son because God commanded him to. His willingness to kill his own son is considered the ultimate test and expression of faith. Of course, God apparently changed his mind and commuted innocent Isaac's death penalty, so it is no wonder some fundamentalists today are willing to risk their children dying from medical neglect just to prove how faithful they are, believing that their faith alone is enough for God to intervene and save their child like Isaac was saved. Yet Abraham was guilty of attempted filicide, as are modern faith healing parents who allow their children to suffer needlessly without any professional medical care, sometimes unto death. The link between Abraham, the father of faith, and modern believers who neglect, harm or murder their children in the name of God is undeniable, so the painting stays as a symbol of all religiously motivated child abuse.

The suffering experienced by children from the misguided actions of religious adults is a specific subset of suffering that I have purposely focused on in this archive to help expose the dogma that God is good and faith is beneficial. What kind of god or God would allow innocent children to suffer or die at the hands of believers and do nothing to intervene and stop the suffering? It is certainly not a kind, loving, compassionate god or God, at least not by any reasonable standard of kindness, love or compassion.  No believer has any reasonable answer to that question of why a presumably good, all-powerful god allows innocent children to needlessly suffer. Neither does the Bible.

The broader question of suffering, any suffering of any human whether related to religion or not, is enough to invalidate the god of the Bible, who is the god of Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. That is the conclusion of Bart Ehrman who has a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Princeton Theological Seminary. He was a life-long, devout and committed evangelical Christian, until he considered deeply the question of why humans suffer. In his 2008 book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer, he explains that the question of suffering is the reason he lost his faith. Rather than paraphrasing him, I provide here two brief excerpts from that book. The first is a description in chapter one of his personal history and why he came to write the book. The second is from the concluding chapter nine in which he discusses a passage from The Brothers Karamazov that considers the question of suffering children.


********************************************************************************




Suffering and a Crisis of Faith - from Chapter One

If there is an all-powerful and loving God in this world, why is there so much excruciating pain and unspeakable suffering? The problem of suffering has haunted me for a very long time. It was what made me begin to think about religion when I was young, and it was what led me to question my faith when I was older. Ultimately, it was the reason I lost my faith. This book tries to explore some aspects of the problem, especially as they are reflected in the Bible, whose authors too grappled with the pain and misery in the world.

To explain why the problem matters so much to me, I need to give a bit of personal background. For most of my life I was a devout and committed Christian. I was baptized in a Congregational church and reared as an Episcopalian, becoming an altar boy when I was twelve and continuing all the way through high school. Early in my high school days I started attending a Youth for Christ club and had a "born-again" experience—which, looking back, seems a bit strange: I had been involved in church, believing in Christ, praying to God, confessing my sins, and so on for years. What exactly did I need to convert from? I think I was converting from hell—I didn't want to experience eternal torment with the poor souls who had not been "saved"; I much preferred the option of heaven. In any event, when I became born again it was like ratcheting my religion up a notch. I became very serious about my faith and chose to go off to a fundamentalist Bible college—Moody Bible Institute in Chicago—where I began training for ministry.

I worked hard at learning the Bible—some of it by heart. I could quote entire books of the New Testament, verse by verse, from memory. When I graduated from Moody with a diploma in Bible and Theology (at the time Moody did not offer a B.A. degree), I went off to finish my college work at Wheaton, an evangelical Christian college in Illinois (also Billy Graham's alma mater). There I learned Greek so that I could read the New Testament in its original language. From there I decided that I wanted to commit my life to studying the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and chose to go to Princeton Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian school whose brilliant faculty included Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual scholar in the country. At Princeton I did both a master of divinity degree—training to be a minister—and, eventually, a Ph.D. in New Testament studies.

I'm giving this brief synopsis to show that I had solid Christian credentials and knew about the Christian faith from the inside out—in the years before I lost my faith.

During my time in college and seminary I was actively involved in a number of churches. At home, in Kansas, I had left the Episcopal church because, strange as this might sound, I didn't think it was serious enough about religion (I was pretty hard-core in my evangelical phase); instead I went a couple of times a week to a Plymouth Brethren Bible Chapel (among those who really believed!). When I was away from home, living in Chicago, I served as the youth pastor of an Evangelical Covenant church. During my seminary years in New Jersey I attended a conservative Presbyterian church and then an American Baptist church. When I graduated from seminary I was asked to fill the pulpit in the Baptist church while they looked for a full-time minister. And so for a year I was pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church, preaching every Sunday morning, holding prayer groups and Bible studies, visiting the sick in the hospital, and performing the regular pastoral duties for the community.

But then, for a variety of reasons that I'll mention in a moment, I started to lose my faith. I now have lost it altogether. I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian. The subject of this book is the reason why.




In an earlier book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, I have indicated that my strong commitment to the Bible began to wane the more I studied it. I began to realize that rather than being an inerrant revelation from God, inspired in its very words (the view I had at Moody Bible Institute), the Bible was a very human book with all the marks of having come from human hands: discrepancies, contradictions, errors, and different perspectives of different authors living at different times in different countries and writing for different reasons to different audiences with different needs. But the problems of the Bible are not what led me to leave the faith. These problems simply showed me that my evangelical beliefs about the Bible could not hold up, in my opinion, to critical scrutiny. I continued to be a Christian—a completely committed Christian—for many years after I left the evangelical fold.

Eventually, though, I felt compelled to leave Christianity altogether. I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe. It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.

The problem of suffering became for me the problem of faith. After many years of grappling with the problem, trying to explain it, thinking through the explanations that others have offered—some of them pat answers charming for their simplicity, others highly sophisticated and nuanced reflections of serious philosophers and theologians—after thinking about the alleged answers and continuing to wrestle with the problem, about nine or ten years ago I finally admitted defeat, came to realize that I could no longer believe in the God of my tradition, and acknowledged that I was an agnostic: I don't "know" if there is a God; but I think that if there is one, he certainly isn't the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in this world. And so I stopped going to church.

*****

Suffering - The Conclusion –  from Chapter 9


[Ehrman begins this chapter with a brief survey of  human suffering of all kinds around the world as reported in just the first section of one Sunday morning newspaper.]


What are we to make of this mess? I should say that I’m not one of those people who is all gloom and doom, who wakes up every morning depressed and despondent about the state of the world.

I’m actually very cheerful, with a good sense of humor, a zest for life, and a sense that there is an unbelievable amount of good in the world—some of which I personally enjoy, every day of my life. But what are we to make of all the tragedy in the world, all the misery, the pain, the suffering?

Just about every day I receive e-mails from people I don’t know; they have read something I’ve written and heard that because I have difficulty explaining the suffering in the world, I have become an agnostic. These e-mails are always well meaning and many of them are very thoughtful. I try to respond to all of them, if nothing else just to thank the person for sending along his or her thoughts.

It is a little surprising to me, though, that so many people have such a simple understanding of suffering and want to share it with me as if I hadn’t heard or thought of that one before. Still, it’s all kindhearted and innocent, and so I appreciate it. One of the most common explanations I get is that we have to understand that God is like a good parent, a heavenly father, and that he allows suffering into our lives as a way of building our character or teaching us lessons about how we should live. There is, of course, biblical precedent for this view:

My child, do not despise the Lord’s discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves the one he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights. (Prov. 3:11–12)

I haven’t devoted an entire chapter to this view, because I don’t think it’s one of the most common explanations found in the Bible, but it is there on occasion, as we have already seen. In the book of Amos, for example, when God punishes the people for their sin, it is precisely as a kind of discipline, to teach them a lesson: they need to return to him and his ways. That is why, according to Amos, the nation has experienced famine, drought, pestilence, war, and death: God was trying to get his people to “return to me” (Amos 4:6–11).

This view would make sense to me if the punishment were not so severe, the discipline so harsh. Are we really to believe that God starves people to death in order to teach them a lesson? That he sends epidemics that destroy the body, mental diseases that destroy the mind, wars that destroy the nation, in order to teach people a lesson in theology? What kind of father is he if he maims, wounds, dismembers, tortures, torments, and kills his children—all in the interest of keeping discipline? What would we think of a human father who starved a child to death because she did something wrong, or who flogged a child nearly to death to help him see theerror of his ways? Is the heavenly father that much worse than the worst human father we can imagine? I don’t find this view very convincing.

From the e-mails I get, I realize that a lot of people think that the suffering experienced in this world is a mystery—that is, that it cannot be understood. As I’ve said before, this is a view that I resonate with. But many think, at the same time, that one day we will be able to understand and that it will make sense. In other words, God ultimately has a plan that we cannot, at present, discern. But in the end we will see that what happened, even the most horrendous suffering experienced by the most innocent of people, was in the best interests of God, the world, the human race, and even of ourselves.

This is a comforting thought for many people, a kind of affirmation that God really is in control and really does know what he’s doing. And if it’s true, I suppose we’ll never know, until the end of all things. But I’m not sure that it’s a convincing point of view. It is a view that reminds me very much of an episode in one of the greatest novels ever written, The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The most famous chapter of this very long novel is entitled “The Grand Inquisitor.” It is a kind of parable, told by one of the book’s main characters, Ivan Karamazov, to his brother Alyosha, in which he imagines what would happen if Jesus were to return to earth as a human being. In his parable Ivan argues that the leaders of the Christian church would have to arrange to have Jesus killed again, since what people want is not the freedom that Christ brings but the authoritarian structures and answers that the church provides. I think the leaders of our world’s megachurches should sit up and take notice—leaders who much prefer providing the certainty of right answers to guiding people to ask difficult questions.

In any event, even though the chapter on the Grand Inquisitor is the novel’s best-known chapter, it is the two chapters immediately before it that I have always found the most compelling. In these chapters it is again Ivan and Alyosha who are talking. Alyosha is a bright but inexperienced young novice at the local monastery; he is deeply religious but still displays some (at times delightful) naïveté. Ivan, his older brother, is an intellectual and a skeptic. Ivan admits that he thinks God exists (he is not an atheist, as interpreters have sometimes claimed), but he wants nothing to do with God. The pain and suffering in the world are too great, and ultimately God is at fault. Even if God were to reveal at the end of time the secret that made sense of all that had happened here on earth, it would not be enough. Ivan wants no part of it. As Ivan says: “It’s not God that I do not accept, you understand, it is this world of God’s, created by God, that I do not accept and cannot agree to accept” (page 235).

He does not accept the world because even if God were to reveal at the end the one thing that made sense of it all, Ivan would still find the suffering in the world too horrible. Ivan likens his rejection of the world to a mathematical problem. The ancient Greek mathematician Euclid indicated that two parallel lines cannot meet (otherwise they would not be parallel). But Ivan notes that there are “some geometers and philosophers” who think that this rule applies only in the realm of finite space, that somewhere in infinity in fact the two parallel lines do meet. Ivan doesn’t deny that this might be true, but he rejects it—his mind can’t grasp it and so he refuses to believe it. It is like that with suffering for him. If in the end God showed that it all served some greater, nobler purpose, it still would not be enough to justify it. As Ivan says:

I have a childlike conviction that the sufferings will be healed and smoothed over, and . . . that ultimately, at the world’s finale, in the moment of eternal harmony, there will occur and be revealed something so precious that it will suffice for all hearts, to allay all indignation, to redeem all human villainy, all bloodshed; it will suffice not only to make forgiveness possible, but also to justify everything that has happened. . . . Let all of this come true and be revealed, but I do not accept it and do not want to accept it! Let the parallel lines even meet before my own eyes: I shall look and say, yes, they meet, and still I will not accept it. (page 236)


This then launches Ivan into a discussion of his view of suffering, in the key chapter of the book, called “Rebellion.” In it he explains that, for him, the suffering of innocent children can not be explained, and that if an explanation from the Almighty ever is forthcoming, he simply won’t accept it (that’s why the chapter is called “Rebellion”—for his pious brother Alyosha, this kind of attitude toward God is rebellious).

Much of the chapter involves Ivan agonizing over the suffering of the innocent. He talks about the violence of Turkish soldiers in the wars in Bulgaria who “burn, kill, rape women and children, [and] nail prisoners by the ears to fences and leave them like that until morning, and in the morning they hang them.” He objects to anyone calling this animal behavior, because that “is terribly unjust and offensive to animals,” who could never behave with this kind of cruelty. He continues:

These Turks, among other things, have also taken a delight in torturing children, starting with cutting them out of their mothers’ wombs with a dagger, and ending with tossing nursing infants up in the air and catching them on their bayonets before their mothers’ eyes. The main delight comes from doing it before their mothers’ eyes. (page 238)

He then comes up with another horrible scenario:

Imagine a nursing infant in the arms of its trembling mother, surrounded by Turks. They’ve thought up an amusing trick: they fondle the baby, they laugh to make it laugh, and they succeed—the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk aims a pistol at it, four inches from its face. The baby laughs gleefully, reaches out its little hands to grab the pistol, and suddenly the artist pulls the trigger right in its face and shatters its little head. . . . Artistic, isn’t it? (pages 238–39)

Ivan’s stories are not just about wartime atrocities. They involve the everyday. And what is frightening is that they ring true to real-life experiences. He is obsessed with the torture of young children, even among well-educated, “civilized” people living in Europe:

They have a great love of torturing children, they even love children in that sense. It is precisely the defenselessness of these creatures that tempts the torturers, the angelic trustfulness of the child, who has nowhere to turn and no one to turn to—that is what enflames the vile blood of the torturer. (page 240)

He tells then the story of a five-year-old girl who was tormented by her parents and severely punished for wetting her bed (a story that Dostoevsky based on an actual court case):

These educated parents subjected the poor five-year-old girl to every possible torture. They beat her, flogged her, kicked her, not knowing why themselves, until her whole body was nothing but bruises; finally they attained the height of finesse: in the freezing cold, they locked her all night in the outhouse, because she wouldn’t ask to get up and go in the middle of the nights (as if a five-year-old child sleeping its sound angelic sleep could have learned to ask by that age)—for that they smeared her face with her excrement and made her eat the excrement, and it was her mother, her mother who made her! (page 242)

Ivan notes that some people have claimed that evil is necessary so that we human beings can recognize what is good. With the five year-old girl with excrement on her face in mind, he rejects this view. With some verve he asks Alyosha:

Can you understand such nonsense [i.e., such evil acts], my friend and my brother, my godly and humble novice, can you understand why this nonsense is needed and created? Without it, they say, man could not even have lived on earth, for he would not have known good and evil. Who wants to know this damned good and evil at such a price? (page 242)

For Ivan, the price is too high. He rejects the idea that there can ever be a divine resolution that will make all the suffering worthwhile, a final answer given in the sky by-and-by that will justify the cruelty done to children (not to mention others; he restricts himself to children just to keep the argument simple): “Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children to do with it?” (page 244). Ivan takes his stand in the here and now to say that whatever is revealed later, whatever can bring “ultimate harmony” to this chaotic world of evil and suffering, he rejects it, in solidarity with the suffering children:

While there’s still time, I hasten to defend myself against it, and therefore I absolutely renounce all higher harmony. It is not worth one little tear of even that one tormented child who beat her chest with her little fist and prayed to “dear God” in a stinking outhouse with her unredeemed tears! (page 245)

In a sense Ivan is reacting against the old Enlightenment view of Leibniz, that despite all its pain and misery, this is the “best of all possible worlds.” The only way one could recognize that this is the best world is if what happens in it is finally explained and justified. But for Ivan, nothing can justify it. He prefers to stand in solidarity with the suffering children rather than to be granted a divine resolution at the end that provides “harmony” to the world—that is, a sense of why all things worked together for the good purposes of God and all humanity.

I’d rather remain with my unrequited suffering and my unquenched indignation, even if I am wrong. Besides, they have put too high a price on harmony; we can’t afford to pay so much for admission. And therefore I hasten to return my ticket. And it is my duty, if only as an honest man, to return it as far ahead of time as possible. Which is what I am doing. It’s not that I don’t accept God, Alyosha, I just most respectfully return him the ticket. (page 245)

Here Ivan likens the final act of history, in which God reveals why all innocent suffering was “necessary” for the greater good—the harmony of all things—to a stage play, wherein the conflicts of the plot are resolved in the end. Ivan admits that the conflicts may be resolved, but he is not interested in seeing the play. The conflicts are too real and damning. And so he returns his ticket.

I first read The Brothers Karamazov more than twenty-five years ago when I was a graduate student (for years I read nothing but nineteenth-century novels, and this was one of my favorites). This passage has stayed with me all those years. I’m not sure I completely agree with Ivan. I think that if, in fact, God Almighty appeared to me and gave me an explanation that could make sense even of the torture, dismemberment, and slaughter of innocent children, and the explanation was so overpowering that I actually could understand, then I’d be the first to fall on my knees in humble submission and admiration. On the other hand, I don’t think that’s going to happen. Hoping that it will is probably just wishful thinking, a leap of faith made by those who are desperate both to remain faithful to God and to understand this world, all the while realizing that the two—their views of God and the realities of this world—are at odds with each other.

13 Jun 2011

Religious groups say proposed circumcision ban is attack on religious freedom, but ignore a child's right to be free from religion



Globe and Mail   -  Canada     June 10, 2011

Russell Crowe launches Twitter tirade: Circumcision is ‘barbaric’

DAVE MCGINN



Oscar-winning actor Russell Crowe is not a fan of circumcision.

“Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature?” Crowe tweeted on Thursday. “Is it real that God requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect.”

Crowe went on the tirade after one of his Twitter followers asked whether he should get his son circumcised.

Then, Crowe appealed to his Jewish friends, including the director Eli Roth, to end the traditional practice of circumcising children.

“I love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats, but stop cutting your babies,” he wrote. “I will always stand for the perfection of babies. I will always believe in God, not man’s interpretation of what God requires,” he added. “Last of it, if you feel it is your right to cut things off your babies please unfollow and f--k off; I’ll take attentive parenting over barbarism.”

Not surprisingly, the messages have landed Crowe in hot water. His tweets have been deleted, and early Friday morning the actor apologized to anyone he may have offended.

“I have a deep and abiding love for all people of all nationalities. I’m very sorry that I have said things on here that have caused distress. My personal believes aside I realize that some will interpret this debate as me mocking the rituals and traditions of others. I am very sorry.”

Roth has been defending Crowe on his Twitter feed since the scandal broke, saying it was just a joke and that Crowe is “NOT antisemitic.”

This article was found at:


***************************************************************************

CNN   June 10, 2011

San Francisco's proposed circumcision ban galvanizes religious opposition

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor


(CNN) - The nation’s largest evangelical Christian umbrella group has come out against San Francisco’s proposed circumcision ban, evidence that the voter initiative is beginning to galvanize national religious opposition.

Thursday’s announcement from the National Association of Evangelicals was noteworthy because unlike Jews and Muslims, Christians are not religiously mandated to practice circumcision.

“Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham,” said National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. “No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."

"The proposed ban violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to exercise one’s religious beliefs," Anderson said in a statement.

How much of a national issue the ban becomes is yet to be seen. An effort to put a circumcision ban on the ballot in Santa Monica, California was abandoned last week.

Many Jewish and Muslim groups have come out against San Francisco’s proposed ban on the procedure that removes the foreskins of infant boys.

Jewish groups have suggested anti-Semitic motives behind the ban. Here’s Nancy J. Appel, associate regional director for the Anti-Defamation League:


This is a sensitive, serious issue where good people can disagree and which the Jewish community feels is an assault on its values and traditions going back thousands of years and centered in the Hebrew Bible.

And here’s influential Los Angeles Rabbi David Wolpe:


Some involved are simply opposed to religion (there are after all some misguided Jews arguing for the ban as well), some wish to target both Muslims and Jews. But can anyone doubt that there are anti-circumcision advocates who seize on this as a chance to hurt Jews and the Jewish tradition?

Many Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, alleged that a comic book called “Foreskin Man,” created by the proposed San Francisco ban’s author,draws on centuries-old stereotypes about Jews. [see related articles links below]

Just as the National Association of Evangelicals did Thursday, some Muslim groups have called the ban an attack on religious freedom:


A ban that specifically targets a religious practice of Muslims and that has been proven to be medically beneficial is a violation of First Amendment rights that guarantees all Americans the right to religious freedom.

The proposed ban would make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco.

Violators could be jailed for a year or fined up to $1,000.

The group that drafted the ban's language says the procedure has adverse physical and psychological effects and likens it to female genital mutilation, a claim that doctors generally reject.

In November 2010, CNN reported that medical evidence had shown mixed risks and benefits of circumcision:


Apart from the San Francisco proposal, circumcisions are under scientific scrutiny.
While widespread in the United States, circumcision rates could be falling, according to recent surveys. About 65 percent of American male infants born in hospitals were circumcised in 1999, according to latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While nationally the circumcision rate has remained steady, the most dramatic decline occurred in the West, where it fell from 64 percent in 1974 to 37 percent in 1999.
Earlier this year, there were unconfirmed estimates that the circumcision rate had fallen to fewer than half for boys born in U.S. hospitals, The New York Times reported last summer, citing a federal report at the International AIDS Conference.
The American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision has been reviewing recent research before it issues an official new position on the issue, probably next year, one panel member said.
"In the past, we've said newborn circumcision has benefits and risks," Dr. Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, told CNN last year. "Given the fact that neither the risks nor benefits are particularly compelling, this is a decision to be made by parents."

This article was found at:


****************************************************************************

TIME  -  June 13, 2011

San Francisco's Circumcision Ban: An Attack on Religious Freedom?

By Adam Cohen




In the 1960s and '70s, the San Francisco Bay Area was where the counterculture really started — the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, the Summer of Love in Haight-Ashbury, gay rights in the Castro. Today, the Bay Area is challenging the larger culture in a new and controversial way: there will be a referendum on the ballot in November that would make it the first major city in the U.S. to outlaw circumcision.

The San Francisco debate over circumcision initially centered on the value of the procedure itself — opponents call it barbaric, supporters point to its long tradition and say it prevents disease. But increasingly the debate is becoming one about religion, in which critics accuse backers of the referendum of bigotry and insist a ban would violate the First Amendment's religious freedoms.

There is plenty of reason to oppose the ban on its own merits. There is no need for a law: if people do not believe in circumcision, they should not have it done to themselves or their children. And even if there were to be a circumcision ban, this one is poorly constructed because of the well-founded religious objections that are being raised.

The anticircumcision debate began in April when a group of self-proclaimed "intactivists" — people who believe strongly that infant boys have a right to keep their foreskins intact — submitted enough signatures to put a circumcision ban on the ballot. The intactivists have taken up the language of international human rights: they are fighting, they say, for "genital autonomy" and "male-genital-integrity rights." Framed this way, it seemed like an appropriately earnest next step for a city that last year banned any kind of Happy Meal that paired toy giveaways with fast food.

The intactivists argue that circumcision needlessly inflicts pain on newborns, and they compare it to female genital mutilation — which is, in fact, a far more serious procedure. (Female genital mutilation can produce severe harm, including infertility and an increased risk of newborn deaths.)

Supporters of circumcision argue that there is a long tradition behind it, both religious and nonreligious, and that the pain involved is fleeting. They also say circumcision has proven health benefits. Removal of the foreskin has been found to help prevent the spread of HIV and other infections. In clinical trials in Africa, the incidence of HIV infection was 60% lower in circumcised men. The World Health Organization has said circumcision is an important component in fighting HIV infection.

Still, the drafters of the San Francisco referendum could have avoided the religious issue — and kept the focus on the harms and benefits of circumcision — if they had included an exception for circumcisions done for religious reasons. Jews, whose religious traditions require male children to be circumcised eight days after birth, and Muslims, who also practice circumcision, are a small part of the city's population.

Instead, the referendum expressly states that the ban would apply equally to religious circumcisions. If it passes, Jewish parents in San Francisco who hold a traditional bris, or circumcision ritual, could be sentenced to a year in jail.

This strict policy certainly seems insensitive. Jews who circumcise their sons trace the tradition back thousands of years. It is a sign, they believe, of a covenant with God, and an affirmation that the Jewish people will survive. There are accounts of circumcisions performed in the direst of circumstances, including in concentration camps. The intactivists aren't swayed by such arguments and insist it's gone on long enough.

Claims of insensitivity, however, have recently turned into charges of outright anti-Semitism. One of the referendum's key supporters has written a comic book, Foreskin Man, that portrays a blond, Aryan-looking superhero doing battle with "Monster Mohel." (Mohels are people trained to perform ritual Jewish circumcisions.) The bearded, prayer-shawl-wearing mohel leers manically at defenseless infants. As one rabbi blogger put it, "Hey San Francisco, 1930's Germany Called — They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!"

Jews and Muslims are not the only religious groups opposing the ban. The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches, declared last week that while their faith neither requires nor forbids circumcision, "Jews, Muslims and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition."

If the referendum passes, it is unclear whether it would survive a constitutional challenge. The First Amendment protects people against laws that unduly interfere with their religious rituals. The question is, How would the courts see this particular interference? In 1972, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Amish parents to not send their children to school past the eighth grade. Yet more recently, it held that the "free exercise" clause does not protect Native Americans who want to engage in ritual use of peyote, an illegal drug. Under the logic of the peyote case, the ban could well survive. The ban could also be challenged under California's state constitution, which might contain broader religious protections than the U.S. Constitution.

On one level, the stakes in the San Francisco vote are small. If the referendum passes, parents can easily take their children out of the city to be circumcised. The danger, though, is that intactivism could spread — and that more localities, and eventually states, will enact bans.

On the other hand, the intactivist movement could come to a quick end. Last week, an activist who had been collecting signatures to put a similar referendum on the ballot in Santa Monica, Calif., announced that she was halting her effort because, she said, a cause that was not intended to be about religion had become a religious issue.

Cohen, a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board, is a lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School. Case Study, his legal column for TIME.com, appears every Monday.

This article was found at:



RELATED ARTICLES ON THIS BLOG



CIRCUMCISION OF BOYS



Initiative to ban male circumcision in San Francisco gets enough signatures for November ballot



Circumcising children without their consent violates their human rights and religious freedom


Jewish groups vow to fight voter initiative that would make male circumcision illegal in San Francisco


Is male circumcision a violation of children's rights or a procedure that prevents disease and saves lives?


Mutilating babies through circumcision is cruel, barbaric medical and religious child abuse


Vancouver man guilty of criminal negligence for botched circumcision of son gets one year in jail


Religiously deluded father guilty of negligence causing bodily harm for botched home-circumcision of 4-year-old son


Man accused of circumcising own children


Jury can't decide whether Mormon polygamist is guilty of child abuse for circumcising two sons at home with box cutter


Dad never charged in botched home circumcision of 3-month old in 2008 now charged with murdering 2nd son 


CIRCUMCISION OF GIRLS


One of the most common human rights abuses is the grotesque sexual torture of girls for religion and tradition



Canadian mom fighting legal battle to protect 3 daughters from ritual abuse of genital mutilation in Nigeria 


New Canadian immigration guide says multiculturalism no excuse for barbaric practices like honour crimes, forced marriages, genital mutilation 


10 year old Nigerian girl facing deportation from UK attempts suicide to avoid cultists and genital mutilation 


Thousands of British girls tortured by genital mutilation, no perpetrator yet prosecuted despite longstanding laws 


Thousands of girls mutilated in Britain 


Female genital mutilation common place in Kurdish Iraq, motivated mainly by a false religious imperative


A Cutting Tradition


Police plea on genital mutilation


American Academy of Pediatrics issue new policy that essentially promotes female genital mutilation


Follow-Up To: American Academy of Pediatrics issue new policy that essentially promotes female genital mutilatio


Egypt forbids female circumcision


Islamic scholar opposes ban on female circumcision


Witch hunt: Africa's hidden war on women


Famous Egyptian feminist tackles religious fundamentalism to protect women and girls, but gets no honour in her own country 


Author challenges feminists to take on major religions that subjugate and abuse women and children