Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What is religious abuse?
Here's an article:
http://www.reveal.org/development/Churches_that_Abuse.pdf
Subtopics are manipulation, authoritarian leadership, excessive discipline and legalism.
And what do you know of Ronald Enroth? Can you say with confidence that he does not bring any of his own evangelical prejudices into his criticism of the religious practices of others? I'm not saying he does because I don't know, but I do know that anybody can pluck 'rules' and 'definitions' off the internet and hold them out as 'proof' of just about anything. And they will almost always be short sighted when they do that.
There are fundamentalists who consider peoples of other traditions the devil's adversaries and the abomination that God hates as expressed in the Bible. There are high church advocates who consider more simple faiths to be ignorant and wrong headed while those of the more simple faiths might see the high church crowd as worshipping 'doing church' instead of worshipping the living Christ.
Some churches teach that it is the church itself that is the vehicle of salvation and others believe that the denomination matters little but it is the relationship with Jesus Christ that is the only important thing. Some quibble over the exact words that must be said in various rites and rituals--some make certain things sacred while others see them as purely symbolic. Some teach that Buddhism is the true path to enlightenment and others will believe that Buddhists gravely err when they reject God and are cruel to their children when they teach them there is no God.
All this is to say that your concept of 'religious abuse' comes from your own experience and understanding which may not mesh with that others have experience and understand at all. Some might say you are FORCING your opinions on others when you state or copy and paste something as a religious fact.[/QUOTE]
I'm hardly FORCING anyone to accept my opinion or the ideas in the article I posted, Fox. I'm only offering it. You don't have to read it, nor do you have to agree with the article or with me.
What constitutes religous abuse to you?
Let's stay focused here.
By offering the article, you say you aren't forcing anyone to accept it even though you offered it as evidence of what is religious abuse. You didn't qualify that by saying this may be right and and it may not. It may be what it seems or it may not. You appeared to 'offer' it as fact that we should all agree with.
And yet earlier in the thread you seemed to be saying that those of us who insist on our children attending church with us, who send them to Sunday School, who teach them to memorize Bible verses and listen to Bible stories are being 'forced'. Your implication was that the children should be allowed to simply discover for themselves what they wish to know and believe.
So where do you draw the line between forcing religion and not?
Are children sitting at the knee of the Christian teacher being forced while children sitting at the knee of the Buddhist teacher somehow are not?
And what do you know of Ronald Enroth? Can you say with confidence that he does not bring any of his own evangelical prejudices into his criticism of the religious practices of others? I'm not saying he does because I don't know, but I do know that anybody can pluck 'rules' and 'definitions' off the internet and hold them out as 'proof' of just about anything. And they will almost always be short sighted when they do that.
There are fundamentalists who consider peoples of other traditions the devil's adversaries and the abomination that God hates as expressed in the Bible. There are high church advocates who consider more simple faiths to be ignorant and wrong headed while those of the more simple faiths might see the high church crowd as worshipping 'doing church' instead of worshipping the living Christ.
Some churches teach that it is the church itself that is the vehicle of salvation and others believe that the denomination matters little but it is the relationship with Jesus Christ that is the only important thing. Some quibble over the exact words that must be said in various rites and rituals--some make certain things sacred while others see them as purely symbolic. Some teach that Buddhism is the true path to enlightenment and others will believe that Buddhists gravely err when they reject God and are cruel to their children when they teach them there is no God.
All this is to say that your concept of 'religious abuse' comes from your own experience and understanding which may not mesh with that others have experience and understand at all. Some might say you are FORCING your opinions on others when you state or copy and paste something as a religious fact.[/QUOTE]
I'm hardly FORCING anyone to accept my opinion or the ideas in the article I posted, Fox. I'm only offering it. You don't have to read it, nor do you have to agree with the article or with me.
What constitutes religous abuse to you?
Let's stay focused here.
By offering the article, you say you aren't forcing anyone to accept it even though you offered it as evidence of what is religious abuse. You didn't qualify that by saying this may be right and and it may not. It may be what it seems or it may not. You appeared to 'offer' it as fact that we should all agree with.
And yet earlier in the thread you seemed to be saying that those of us who insist on our children attending church with us, who send them to Sunday School, who teach them to memorize Bible verses and listen to Bible stories are being 'forced'. Your implication was that the children should be allowed to simply discover for themselves what they wish to know and believe.
So where do you draw the line between forcing religion and not?
Are children sitting at the knee of the Christian teacher being forced while children sitting at the knee of the Buddhist teacher somehow are not?
I offered some articles. Let me qualify that they are written by people of faith who have studied the issue. As to whether they are 'right' or not, that's up to reader to decide.
Please quote the post directly that you percieved me saying that those of you who send their children to Sunday School are 'forcing' them. Can your children say no, I don't want to go to Sunday School? You can answer that question for yourself.
I was baptized when I was an infant. I hardly had a choice, did I? I was sent to Catholic school, no one asked me if I would prefer public school.
I do think children should be encouraged to ask questions and to investigate their own interests in spirituality without being indoctrinated. You asked for my opinion, and I've offered it.
Religous abuse happens when the naturally inquisitive mind of the child is suppressed and a religious “truth” and morality are imposed. The child is not brought up to develop their own belief system, or even to be aware that there are other belief systems. They are dependent on a system imposed by their religion or parents.
“Some religions produce a childhood dominated by fear – a real fear of hell, of disapproval in the present and of eternal damnation.”
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/psychological-and-religious-abuse-of-children/
So you're swerving off your original premise that those of us who teach religious concepts to our children are forcing relgiion on them and you now want to discuss the opinions of the author of the book?
So you're swerving off your original premise that those of us who teach religious concepts to our children are forcing relgiion on them and you now want to discuss the opinions of the author of the book?
I am not indicting you personally or any other poster on this forum. Stop personalizing. I am discussing the possibility of having religion without force and showing examples where excessive force is used.
When I read articles that I think make interesting points I include them. You are free to read them or ignore them.
So you're swerving off your original premise that those of us who teach religious concepts to our children are forcing relgiion on them and you now want to discuss the opinions of the author of the book?
I am not indicting you personally or any other poster on this forum. Stop personalizing. I am discussing the possibility of having religion without force and showing examples where excessive force is used.
When I read articles that I think make interesting points I include them. You are free to read them or ignore them.
You are indeed swerving, Sky.
The posted articles have very little to do with the first 25 pages of this thread. You are now using them as a parachute and diversion. Thats dishonest.
You spoke of your abuse at the hands of a foster mother and where your opinions stem from. That you are the victim of RELIGIOUS abuse still is questionable - even with the aid of the articles.
I am not indicting you personally or any other poster on this forum. Stop personalizing. I am discussing the possibility of having religion without force and showing examples where excessive force is used.
When I read articles that I think make interesting points I include them. You are free to read them or ignore them.
You are indeed swerving, Sky.
The posted articles have very little to do with the first 25 pages of this thread. You are now using them as a parachute and diversion. Thats dishonest.
You spoke of your abuse at the hands of a foster mother and where your opinions stem from. That you are the victim of RELIGIOUS abuse still is questionable - even with the aid of the articles.
If you think the articles are irrelevant to the topic of the use of force in religion don't read them.
It is not necessary to call me dishonest for posting them. If you are not interested in the topic of how to offer religion without force, and to discuss the misuse of religon don't post on the thread.
I didn't say there weren't related to the topic.I am not indicting you personally or any other poster on this forum. Stop personalizing. I am discussing the possibility of having religion without force and showing examples where excessive force is used.
When I read articles that I think make interesting points I include them. You are free to read them or ignore them.
You are indeed swerving, Sky.
The posted articles have very little to do with the first 25 pages of this thread. You are now using them as a parachute and diversion. Thats dishonest.
You spoke of your abuse at the hands of a foster mother and where your opinions stem from. That you are the victim of RELIGIOUS abuse still is questionable - even with the aid of the articles.
If you think the articles are irrelevant to the topic of the use of force in religion don't read them.
It is not necessary to call me dishonest for posting them. If you are not interested in the topic of how to offer religion without force, and to discuss the misuse of religon don't post on the thread.
RE: You are indeed swerving, Sky.
That's right. Don't call her a liar. Even when she lies.
RE: You are indeed swerving, Sky.
That's right. Don't call her a liar. Even when she lies.
Dear AllieBaba and Sky:
May I suggest some guidelines for safe sharing to avoid unnecessary conflict and debate:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
This is just a rough guide to facilitate open discussion, as used in public dialogues on racism, by some volunteers from the Bahai. Because talk of race or religion easily gets personal, they developed some guidelines to help people stay on task and to keep the focus on healing experiences, without fear of offending or hurting others.
Anyone is allowed to share freely, but people are reminded not to make generalizations by assuming someone is a representative of a "group" but everyone expresses individual perceptions and experiences by saying "I feel" this or that without imposing that belief on others.
If everyone can stick to expressing what you personally feel about the issue or topic and not try to direct it to criticism of a person, can you say the same thing or make the same correction without getting personal with people?
I know these forums are GREAT for venting freely, but let's not get entangled in personal debate that detracts from resolving what we are saying or thinking about the issues!
If the issues sidetrack onto related thoughts, that's fine also.
Just try not to incite or escalate personal criticisms if the same
points or corrections can be made other ways.
I would like to hear what everyone is saying on here.
But I will get lost in the msgs and miss replies if there are cracks back and forth that are not directly about the issues, even if they stray here and there.
Thanks for your help on this.
I have lots of questions and ideas to raise with both Christians and Buddhists,
as I believe in following both teachings to fulfill both the paths of the
churched under divine laws and the gentiles under natural laws.
So I believe both are necessary to establish universal truth to help all humanity to achieve englightenment, salvation and spiritual maturity.
We will get there by learning conflict resolution so we can put all our knowledge and wisdom together insetad of losing relations divided in conflict.
So this is actually part of that fulfillment process!
Thank you for contributing and I hope to read more of what you believe and think is going on with people and the spiritual process in the world.
Yours truly,
Emily
Dear Emily,
Thank you for your thoughtful post, but the premise of the thread started out that Buddhists allow their children to 'discover' on their own and that Christians or others are somehow forcing religion on children by teaching them religious beliefs and concepts.Hi Foxfyre and thanks for breaking down the points that is really helpful.
I believe the difference is that asking people to receive Jesus is accepted on faith first.
It is not proven until after that point, where people can learn how to apply this faith to make all the changes in life that it brings. No one has proven Justice exists, we just accept to live by Justice and establish it in the process.
With Buddhism, the tradition is to offer Wisdom. And if people see that these things make sense, then they choose to follow it. No one is asked to believe in Buddha or believe anything based on faith without proof.
Now, whether that is abusive or not, it depends how it is done.
Even spanking can be seen as abusive to children, because it depends on emotion and obeying authority not reason, because kids are not developed yet to understand all things.
It depends how spanking is used if it is abusive or not.
Same with Christianity, there are ways to indoctrinate using fear-based methods instead of love that cause emotional damage.
Skydancer would be correct if she talked about "specific" cases where Christian teaching was done abusively. If "mass generalizations" had not been made about either Christian or Buddhist parents or teachings, this offense would not have come up as that is wrong. There are differences in how both are taught, but that is not even true in all cases!
I would rather follow up on "specific" things that are abusive, and how these can happen in any case, even with secular teachings or laws. It isn't just religion or Christianity.
The only 'abuse' involved seemed to be in some of Sky's relationships with others.
Unfortunately people do project their own process and healing into such discussions that are connected with the same. Can we agree to use this for good, for healing, and not let it be a bad thing to criticize?
We can still raise the same questions or points, but in a manner of correcting to help improve relations with each other. Not to discredit one another.
Can we talk about this more constructively and forgive when it becomes negative?
Isn't that part of the healing process too?
So the good points and benefits within Buddhism or Christianity or Judaism or whatever--and I am one who teaches that ALL religions contain at least some truth and ALL do some good--are really irrelevent to the discussion. Or they are irrelevent if we stay focused on the OP.
I think these would come up also. I agree with you that there are strengths and weaknesses in all teachings. so whatever we address here, on topic, is going to apply relatively to the others also. We may find or use other analogies or references from other religious traditions, so that it doesn't become defensive. but we talk specifically about what is causing the abuse that can happen anywhere with anyone, that is the real issue.
It began to get more complicated when we began splitting hairs over what is the difference between a Buddhist teacher teaching others and a Christian teacher teaching others, and at least one of us tried to make the case that the Christian student often isn't given a choice in what to believe.
From my experience, I have found many Christian friends are reluctant to include or taught to exclude other religions, and this perception may be part of what Sky is objecting to. Instead of making generalizations, I would address with each person which things they believe are exclusive, since everyone is different.
The Bahai celebrate all religions as contributing teachings to the whole. But my mother and at least one of my friends teach Buddhism as almost against or excluding what Christianity teaches, saying it is reaching outside instead of inside and not getting why Jesus is key. So that can become just as much as "not a choice to believe in" by not teaching that correctly. I agree there is a problem with that.
If Buddhists run around teaching Christianity or Jesus means something it does not,
then that is practicing false speech, attaching oneself to false views. Buddhist would have to let go of any limited or false perception of Christianity in order to follow their own teachings. If they are not completely open minded that Christianity could offer greater truth than what they already think, that can become close minded and against Buddhist teachings.
Anyone can do this, even Buddhists.
But again what I think Sky was referring to was the teaching in Buddhism not to indoctrinate others, but to offer freely without asking people to believe or adopt anything.
Many Christians believe in openly asking and even urging others or requiring them to share the Gospel. So this can easily become abusive, when mixed with fear of punishment or hell. (I would say in Buddhism the opposite risk occurs, that if you become too passive you can commit neglect and allow wrongs or suffering to continue that could be prevented. So that could be seen as abusive also, by negligence and denial.)
When that theory was I think effectively shot down, THEN we were presented with what was problably the original target of the thread to begin with--accusations and condemnation of abuses that exist in other religions and of course Buddhism would never be guilty of that.
And at that point, some of us simply called out what I believe was unintended dishonesty in the method used to get there, but it is seen as a form of dishonesty by many of us just the same.
I agree there is projection going on, but I would not call it intellectual dishonesty since Sky seems to acknowledge she is working out her process. The steps or stages of recovery from past grievances is not always all at once, so she may be in a different place right now. Maybe she needs to vent about past hostilities she has had to face in the past before she can let go. They need to process out by verbaliszing them. I agree this is not good to do by making group generalizations that offend others, as she does not like that either.
If that is where she is right now, then what is the best way to help progress from this stage to a better place? I believe corrections are better received in the spirit of forgiveness not criticism. If we can focus on mutual forgiveness and correction, I believe these faults you point out in logic will work themselves out. Everyone has these emotional bumps. Sky seems in a better place with it than some of my friends, so this is mild compared to the venting and inability to deal with differences I have seen with other people. This is actual quite civil compared to where some of my friends are with talking about religion at all!
Thanks and I hope the points can be refocused and stick there.
Like the issue of "what constitutes abuse"
I tried to answer that with respect to Buddhism and Christianity
but it also gets into other applications as well, not just those.
I'm not interested in communication with Sky. She's a lying douche who has zero ability to think objectively or communicate. Not only that, her objective is and has always been to oppress those who don't fall in line and eliminate freedom.
But ultimately it comes to this..she's dishonest, so there's no point in trying to pursue adult communication with her.
Dear Emily,
I'm sure you mean well but I believe you are confusing interventions and mediation conferences with discussions on a message board. I always try to give a member opportunity to clarify when a posted comment has a lot of room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. But if you want conflict resolution in a thread that obviously was born out of feelings of conflict, it simply isn't going to happen on a message board.
The very best we can hope for is that the differing parties will not become perpetual enemies in the process of disagreeing. Some here are mature enough to accomplish that. Some aren't. But don't ask us to overlook dishonesty, intended or unintended, when it exists.
I KNOW how to do conflict resolution. I KNOW how to conduct a mediation. I KNOW how to structure a formal debate, what pitfalls to avoid, and the do's and don'ts.
But this is a USMB message board and it is what it is. And it isn't any of those other things.
I'm not interested in communication with Sky. She's a lying douche who has zero ability to think objectively or communicate. Not only that, her objective is and has always been to oppress those who don't fall in line and eliminate freedom.
But ultimately it comes to this..she's dishonest, so there's no point in trying to pursue adult communication with her.
She sounds like an interesting challenge. If you can learn how to communicate with someone whom you most object to, and have least success or in common with, you can learn to deal with just about anyone else. This is very valuable if you use it that way!
I would encourage you to try different angles and explore what it would take to get some common points established that are beneficial to both you and Sky. And she will also learn in the process how to communicate more effectively where she does not give a negative perception to others. You stand to learn and gain a lot more than you might think!
