Mental abuse for Jesus
Nov 11th, 2008 | By Shalini Sehkar | Category: CommentaryAppeasers often say that religion is AWWRIGHT because it supposedly gives theists hope and helps them live a happier life (or something). However, I wonder if they would still think that religion is AWWRIGHT after reading this blog post by a fundie theist who thinks that heaping mental abuse on her four-year-old daughter is AWWRIGHT because it is done in the name of religion.
Sometimes during the day or before bed, she always asks me if she has been good, and I always try to be as honest as I can with her, and I will tell her what she has done wrong if I can remember. If she has been better than usual I will praise her and tell her. I have never said to her she has been a perfect little girl who has done nothing wrong all day, If I say that to her then I am a liar and I will be doing her more harm than good. I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not.
Teaching children self-esteem is a bad thing now? Feeling good about yourself is a bad thing? Talk about Theist Bizzario World indeed.
Remember, this is a four-year-old kid that we’re talking about here. If her mother thinks that she shouldn’t be feeling good about herself at such an age, I shudder to imagine how messed-up that kid would be in the future.
My daughter is a normal 4 year old who loves to play with her dolls and dress up, but everyday she finds that she is doing things that are wrong like doing something to upset her baby brother or not doing what she is told by her mum. So we have a problem, and this is an everyday battle. The problem is sin. I never taught my daughter to sin. This is because she, and as well as the rest of the human race have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. From the moment we are conceived we are sinners, Pslam 57:5. We are born with a desire to sin. We are all born God hating and evil.
Teaching your kids that they are evil and that they should hate themselves because an old book of lies says so: It’s AWWRIGHT because it is religion, right?
“But mummy, everyday I try and I want to be a good girl, but I can’t do it. I can’t be a good girl”. I didn’t know what to say to her at this point so I asked her why she could not do it. ” Because there is only one person who can ever help me to be good”, she said.So not knowing where this was going and a little confused by what my daughter was saying, I asked her who it is who would help her to be a good girl, thinking maybe she was going to say me, she said- Jesus. Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own. I have never told her this.
[sarcasm] Yeah, her fundie mother never told her that. Living in such an environment would ensure that she couldn’t have possibly have heard of Jesus. Of course. [/sarcasm]
The worst is yet to come:
She is a wretched little girl, who knows she is a wretched sinner who needs only a good saviour to help her. Glory belongs to God!
Know why someone can say something like that and not be hauled off for child (mental) abuse?
It is because it is religion, and society has been conditioned to believe that it is AWWRIGHT and that we should not interfere. We are told to respect religion unconditionally although innocent people are hurt simply because religion is involved. There is no reason for giving religion a free pass - but somehow we have swallowed the idea that respect entails shutting up and avoiding confrontations with religious people; because we apparently know that when it comes to religion, it’s AWWRIGHT, ethics be damned.
Sigh.
Last 5 posts by Shalini Sehkar
- Another family destroyed by religion - December 18th, 2008
- “Behold, it was very good.” - December 6th, 2008
- I am not a Darwinist - November 21st, 2008
- Stalin, Stalin, Stalin! - November 4th, 2008
- The Burial of Jesus - October 28th, 2008
Loading ...
Keep it up, Shalini! I’m behind you all the way. I’m disgusted by this.
[Reply]
Judging from previous experience (which is confirmed by the comments on that blog), emphasizing that this hurts the daughter’s self-esteem and possibly will wreck her psychology will not at all stir the vestigial conscience of a fundamentalist. They are EVIL and wicked because of the sin of Eve’s curiosity and only Jesus’ amazing grace can save wretches like them. They don’t, however, deserve this in any way. Jesus is simply overflowing with unconditional love. Any amount of self-esteem is evil because it blinds them to their evil nature and the need for redemption.
Rubbing this under their noses won’t in any way make them see how harmful their actions are (because they ultimately serve the purpose of salvation). Servility and self-hatred justifiably repulse any sensible unbeliever, but are extolled as virtues in the fundamentalist mindset. The only way to argue with fundamentalists like this woman is to argue against the veracity of their worldview (which itself is hard enough). Pointing out the wickedness of their religion (both the very basics, such as eternal punishment by celestial autocracy, and the consequences, such as psychological harm to children) is a waste of breath. It’s a great motivator for atheists, though.
[Reply]
HV Reply:
November 12th, 2008 at 7:26 am
“Servility and self-hatred justifiably repulse any sensible unbeliever, but are extolled as virtues in the fundamentalist mindset.”
Absolutely, AS. And it seems the daughter is being ‘punished’ for her born-again mother’s guilt over aborting her first baby. The mother herself only ‘found god’ after this daughter was born, so presumably for the first year or so, she was not considered to be a ‘wretched’ child.
Heaping her own guilt and shame upon her innocent daughter will likely ensure that in time, she will lose that child too, by alienation as the girl grows and learns to think for herself and comes to realise just how cruel and stupid all that ‘original sin’ doctrine is. Let’s hope that is what happens, because alternatives are too horrible to imagine.
[Reply]
I rather like your interpretive spelling of “alright” and “bizarro”. Apparently you don’t believe in the English language, either. I knew the devil and illegals had to be involved in Obama’s win in Colorado. Total fraud. Didn’t you know that you are required to believe in God to vote? Why don’t you move to back to your godless country and leave us alone?
[Reply]
it’s not about US deciding what’s good for THEM. if people hold religious views, they dont have to be practical from the viewpoint of an atheist to be permissible. That girl’s parents seriously believe that their daughter could go to hell if they don’t instill such values in her, so that’s what they does. Hell, they’d be terrible parents if they didn’t. That’s not to say anything goes in the name of religion, but this isn’t exactly daily beatings in the name of god.
as long as you do not commit child abuse (which they are not) people should be free to teach their children whatever beliefs they have and in whatever way they see fit.
I am an atheist, and sure I don’t like it, but in the end this is what fundies believe, and telling them not to do this is tantamount to fundies telling you to teach the word of christ to your children.
[Reply]
This is absolutely disgusting. This is child abuse. And, here’s another add-on: she’s a mental health nurse! Honestly, I really hope she keeps her theology to herself when she’s at work. She is working with people who are at their most vulnerable. The last thing they need to be told by someone who they view as a stable societally-recognized guide to their recovery is that they are inherently evil and will always be so and that their only recourse is to accept and beg the forgiveness of the very God that has allowed (if not directly instigated) the conditions that made their life and their mind such that they need advanced psychiatric care.
[Reply]
I’m probably going to get some lip for even being on this website. I’m sorry that you have such negative feelings towards religion in general. Were it a perfect world, issues like this would never even come up. I’m a Christian, but please hear me out before you label me as a religious fanatic.
It is absolutely wrong for a child to be raised in such circumstances as the one presented by her mother. It’s sad to see how distorted worldviews can become, and truly, the only thing I can do about it is to make sure I don’t repeat those mistakes. While I’m sure everyone realizes the need to distinguish between bad and good social behavior, its pitiful when a parent can’t accept their own child’s actions and responses to what would otherwise be natural behaviors.
Sometimes, it is with great pain that I associate myself with what is commonly known as a religion. I do believe in God but probably not for the reasons you think. I mean I’ve seen all kinds of horrible things in this world. I’ve seen good people suffer for nothing and children being subject to all sorts of physical and psychological horror. And if I believed that it was all for nothing and without some sort of greater purpose I just don’t know if I could even wake up tomorrow.
Again I’m sorry that you and I may think completely different things, and it was far from my intentions to rant on this site. But when things really boil down to the simple facts, you and I may not be so different. I don’t know about you, but for me and probably many theists out there, I’m just trying to get by. I respect that conclusion that you’ve come to, and I also acknowledge that it must have take some real thought. That is why I just ask that you do the same for me. I arbor no ill will towards you or your beliefs, I just want the freedom to express my beliefs without feeling ashamed.
[Reply]
Tauriq Moosa Reply:
November 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I think I speak for everyone when I say, I completely agree with you. You may have been speaking my mind to a great extent, except that I do not believe in a god. You did not rant, nor do I think you presented yourself in an ill-light. I hope you will visit the site again!
[Reply]
These “appeasers” also often tack on that if ones religious views interfere with the life of another person, then it’s not okay. Especially if that life is someone who is too young to understand what they’re saying, such as a child. Granted, its hard for people to live by their faith and not have it interfere with someone else, but it is possible. These are the religious people who I am not against. So yes, I still think (some/personal) religion is alright.
[Reply]
The only way to argue with fundamentalists like this woman is to argue against the veracity of their worldview (which itself is hard enough). Pointing out the wickedness of their religion (both the very basics, such as eternal punishment by celestial autocracy, and the consequences, such as psychological harm to children) is a waste of breath.
Agreed; it’s a waste of breath. Take the children away from them.
[Reply]
Shalini,
Your posts are ridiculous to the extreme. Raising kids to believe that God exists and that there are eternal consequences for actions is not morally different from raising kids to believe that God does not exist and that there are no eternal consequences for actions.
I presume you have plenty of evidence that your ‘Cult of Self-Esteem’ produces a good, moral citizenry as opposed to a country of self-absorbed jerks.
Jeff, do really believe that we should remove children from families that raise their kids according to Christian principles and values? Do you REALLY think that? Or were you maybe a little drunk when you wrote that?
If you people are going to be taken seriously outside of your little humanist clubs, you should start complaining about things that matter.
[Reply]
Tauriq Moosa Reply:
November 16th, 2008 at 7:05 am
cm
It’s not about raising kids not to believe something: Quite the opposite. It’s about allowing them freedom to learn, think and choose what they want. Indeed, I would say that Daniel Dennett’s proposal is quite a good one. Dennett proposes that we all teach our children about all the world’s religions, their customs, their beliefs, in as objective a manner as possible. Then you can teach them whatever you want - as long as it does not limit them in anyway.
Esp. if the main focus is on compassion and loving your children. I’m not a parent nor do i plan on having children, but I have worked with families. I have studied family relationships: compassion and compliments are important. I don’t know this woman, but if what Shalini and the blog says is true (and Shalini is just quoting from the blog), we should be hesitant to say this is a good mother. Do you not think that this child is being stifled of love, freedom as human being and fulfillment on purely basic, individual level? Ignore that we are humanists, ignore all that. I would like to know your opinion on this mother if she really does treat her children this way.
Presumably, our focus on the horros of certain theocratic regimes, politics, the misuse of reason and so on are not “things that matter”? Because from just glancing at our current articles on display, that’s what there. And complaining gets nowhere, we try to offer suggestions because at the very least: We all believe that humanity is better than this and we can do better!
And we have reached “outside” “our little humanist clubs” (I dont know what that is), because you have commented, as we get comments from believers all the time.
I hope you will answer my suggestions and questions.
[Reply]
cm Reply:
November 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Tauriq,Of course we need to teach our kids about other religions, customs and beliefs, but it is impossible to do so from a totally objective basis. We are all biased.
Your statement “as long as it does not limit them in anyway” seems very nice on the surface, but it is a profoundly dangerous idea. Don’t we need to give our kids true principles from which to start so that they can make decisions based in reality? What could be more true than that all humans are capable of great evil? It seems there is ample evidence for that.
I agree, compassion and compliments are important, my kids get them all the time. If there were any evidence that this woman was not compassionate or complimentary towards her kids, then I might be concerned, but there is no evidence whatsoever of that in that post. She is correct that we are all born under the curse of sin and its effects. She is also correct that there is only one way to be freed from the curse. I do not see any evidence in that post that this child is being deprived in any way.
Just because you disagree with her theology does not mean that she is a poor mother.
Perhaps I should have directed my comments more specifically at Shalini. She is certainly acerbic when it comes to her disdain for religion, but her posts are so devoid of any substance that it is simply ridiculous. That she accuses this mother of child abuse because she disagrees with her theology should demonstrate that Shalini has nothing of substance, she has no arguments to put forward (except what she borrows from Dawkins) and she must resort to ad hominem.
You may have reached outside of your little humanist clubs, but you won’t be taken seriously if all you have to offer is ad hominem attacks and arguments based on the worst possible caricature of your opponents.
[Reply]
Tauriq Moosa Reply:
November 16th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Thanks for writing a civil reply, I’m sort of not used to them
I don’t disagree that bias comes into play, but for example, the research and books of Karen Armstrong are good templates for the inquiry into religions. Indeed, I have great respect for her - though as of late, we’ve had a falling out (I say that like I know her, but I dont). It is as unbiased as possible, though her affection for Muhammad leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
I do understand what you mean, but I hope you see what I mean. It is not possible to be completely neutral, but we can try really hard.
::”Your statement “as long as it does not limit them in anyway” seems very nice on the surface, but it is a profoundly dangerous idea. Don’t we need to give our kids true principles from which to start so that they can make decisions based in reality? What could be more true than that all humans are capable of great evil? It seems there is ample evidence for that.”
Telling kids they are capable of evil maybe true, but I wonder how is it helpful? Sure, we can highlight that all humans are capable of this (I’m actually researching this for a series of articles on evil). This is true and given to further knowledge. But surely there are better ways to teach them that, esp. from such a young age. Surely we should focus on the good that people do, that they can do good, be good, etc. Telling them with the same twist of the tongue that they can be as evil, too, doesn’t seem to me a good thing. Indeed, there is substantial psychological evidence that simply by suggesting evil or negativity can be a bad thing for growing kids. I’m not saying keep them blinded to the truth, but at a certain age - young kids - it just is not helpful.
Evil is too big a concept for such tiny kids - to put it bluntly, its why there are age-restrictions on videos. I know im downplaying this entire thing, but I’m trying to get my point across from what I’ve learnt. However, I am not a parent and I doubt that this will make the child into a psychopathic killer - but I do wonder how it helps with the happiness of a young child. Certainly, they must be taught truths of the world (I’m all for that 134.6%) but balance is in order as to when that should be. (this is not the space or place for such a discussion, though, hence why im not saying as well as id like, im usually more um eloquent)]
:: “She is correct that we are all born under the curse of sin and its effects. She is also correct that there is only one way to be freed from the curse. I do not see any evidence in that post that this child is being deprived in any way.
I think the central disagreement we have is whether this child is being deprived and whether she is gaining anything. Correct me if I’m wrong. I would like to know what way are freed from this curse? What evidence do you have? I think that we need compassion, respect, freedom, etc. and it is all within the grasp of humans. We do not need religions or supernatural elements for that. I understand you would probabyl not consider them supernatural. But, I at least hope you see where I stand with this. And I would like your response.
::”Just because you disagree with her theology does not mean that she is a poor mother.”
- not at all. It’s not her theology, she could’ve used “you WILL NOT BELIEVE IN GOD” or even forced science on her, and I would think it a form of child abuse. But I see that a child viewing herself as sinful or sick is just terrible. I would hope that she would relish in the wonder of being alive, in being healthy, in having a family, loving the beauty of nature, etc. etc. Why worry about being evil at this stage?
(I understand if im coming across as a naive profolactic)
:: “Perhaps I should have directed my comments more specifically at Shalini. She is certainly acerbic when it comes to her disdain for religion, but her posts are so devoid of any substance that it is simply ridiculous. That she accuses this mother of child abuse because she disagrees with her theology should demonstrate that Shalini has nothing of substance, she has no arguments to put forward (except what she borrows from Dawkins) and she must resort to ad hominem.”
It didn’t seem like ad hominem, it seemed that she quoted fully from what the mother tells us. It seemed to me that Shalini was basing her judgments, whether you agree with them or not, on what the mother has taught her child and how to view herself. If that’s ad hominem, then I would also make an attack on a parent who teaches their child to view themselves as sick, sinful and dirty.
“You may have reached outside of your little humanist clubs, but you won’t be taken seriously if all you have to offer is ad hominem attacks and arguments based on the worst possible caricature of your opponents.”
- I agree. And that’s not really at all what we do. We focus on ideas and opinions, indeed, when I was outlining critiques of the so-called new atheists, i was criticised by my co-thinkers. I still am. There was no ad hominem amongst us, but good thorough analysis of thoughts. For example, I sat with the ideas and opinions that were laid against the so-called “militant” atheists (esp. Dawkins). There was no ad hominem, at least I hope, when i did it.
I can say the same for the other writers. Also, saying “little humanist clubs” is not completely capturing the incredible diversity, number and activities. It’s not a small number of people (indeed, France has a 50+% percentage of nonbelievers, most active apparently!). It’s not little in any sense of the word. This really is a good thing for everyone.
[Reply]
A. S. Reply:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:35 am
cm - I don’t think Shalini was advocating taking children away from their parents because they teach them Christian values. I do, however, sense a certain persecution complex in your post. Condemning this mother’s parenting doesn’t imply advocating taking her kid away (I don’t think that the kid would be any better off in the foster care system). I am thoroughly repulsed by the idea of children being the property of the state, but I feel only slightly less disgusted at the idea that children are the property of their parents. There needs to be a line at which the state can intervene for the welfare of the child, regardless of alleged supernatural mandates. A father who lovingly beats his children on the basis of Solomon’s book of proverbs would cross said line. Christian Scientists and those who fancy themselves to be Jehovah’s witnesses make a great leap over that line as well. Now, I don’t think that the way that Christianity is most commonly interpreted is harmful for children. And while I find the Christian homeschooling to be a horrible way of perpetuating ignorance and bigotry by intellectual abuse of the minds of credule children, I can’t in good conscience oppose a parent’s right to homeschool his or her kids. There are no absolute moral principles that are defensible in this case. Whether an action of a parent qualifies as abuse (i.e. harmful to the child) can only be determined by the society of which the parent and the child are part of.
[Reply]