PAPER #4: Religious Educational Abuse
Learning is exciting. Learning opens doors to new perspectives, to links between concepts never seen before, to the thinking of geniuses and of fools and the ability to distinguish between the two, to linked disciplines, to informed discussion between you and other learners, to the growth of new theories and new facts, to the growth of knowledge, and to learning in perspective - usually to the growth self-understanding and the realization that you know nothing and that it will take your life to learn anything of real value.
Religions understand the relationship between belief, faith, and enforced learning. Their teaching does not encourage clear, individual thought, but stunts it. Religions discourage learning as it should be, and insist that the interpretations made by a long line of religious “experts” is all there is. The most extreme of these maintain that all you need to know is in the holy books and their translations by men who have spent their lives pandering to men before them who spent their lives pandering to the men before them, and so on. Learning in the religious context does not exist - teaching exists, absorption exists, following other’s guidance exists - but learning, true learning through examination, comparison and relationship-building, long-term observation, research and scientific analysis, does not exist. Indeed, religious teaching is abusive, demoralizing, and suppressing.
The perspective of religious teaching as an abusive act is a part of all religious educational organizations, institutions and churches. In regions where schools are controlled by evangelical school boards in America, by fundamentalists in Islamic countries, by Roman Catholics, and by many other religions, all teaching is tantamount to child-abuse - religious school teaching purposely limits children from learning all that they should to function well in the modern, global society. Religious schools demand that a strict code of “learning” and curriculum be followed - creative thinking and the encouragement of the linking of disciplines are discouraged. Most religions teach using their religious texts as the basis for learning stopping any individual thought by suggesting that only “god” can spread knowledge through “his word”. The abuse of children is further expanded in religious institutions where “alternatives” to the modern sciences are provided (such as creationism), to language development (where many of the modern writers are censored), to reading and writing by an insistence that the only books they must read are the holy books, and the only writing that must be done is the copying of their texts and their interpretation by recognized religious “scholars”. In Muslim schools children must memorize the Qur’an and the Hadith but may not read any of the classics, either in their language or translated from other languages.
Children taught in religious schools are unfit for secular colleges and universities: the content of what they have been taught in school, the way the content was taught, the limitations on the development of creative thinking, the fear of building comparisons between similar thoughts in different disciplines, the fear of what their “god” will do to them if they deviate from his curriculum, and the limitations on the education they have received with the twisting of theories and facts, all make these poor children unfit for secular learning; they have been severely abused, they have been locked in a religious closet in the dark of deep superstition for sixteen years and are stunted, often mentally ill, unable to reason or question, and cannot envisage any other existence which might be promoted by an open mind in an open education. The churches have them exactly where they want them - ignorant and filled with fear. As Robert Browning (1812-1899) the English poet put it: “Who knows most doubts most.”
Part of the teaching in religious schools is to encourage the children to choose religious colleges and universities where the educational limitations and the promotion of dogma over freedom of thought and speech continues. It is not an exaggeration for Ignatius Loyola to say: “Give me a child for seven years and I have him for life.” Neither is it an exaggeration for John Adams (second President of the United States) to say: “I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in hell, it is this society of Loyola’s.” In a letter to thomas Jefferson , May 5th, 1816.
Jefferson, in a letter to Baron Alexander von Humbolt on December 6th, 1813, said; “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” Jefferson’s direct order on the founding of his university, the University of Virgina is very enlightening: “A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.” From a letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7th, 1814.
And, finally, from James Madison in a letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1st, 1774; “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.” Madison also wrote in his “Memorial and Remonstrace” in Virginia, in 1785, opposing both the provision of government land for churches, and the provision of tax-based support for teachers in churches; “During almost fifteen centuries has the the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”
There is no doubt, that churches actually teach falsehoods because they are either a part of their religious dogma, but also because their pastoral leaders accept the falsehoods as fact because of dire ignorance or economic gain. The poet, Thomas Moore wrote in Lalla Rookh: The Veiled Prophet of Khorassan, Page 70 : “...faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast to some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last.”
The Catholic Church rejected the printing press for two hundred years because it knew that once secular society was able to publish non-religious texts, the church’s control of what they read would be over. But they did this, too, because they made a large amount of money in a largely illiterate society by renting out scribes, and by producing almost all of the illuminated scrolls required by kings and other potentates as a part of their written records.
Child abuse of many kinds in religious schools are widespread. James G. Dwyer, in his book; Religious Schools Vs Children’s Rights, “The evidence suggests that both Fundamentalist and Catholic diocesan schools, to varying degrees, infringe the personal liberties of students, fail to develop in students important cognitive skills and/or to provide them with an adequate knowledge base, promote intolerance and/or dogmatism, undermine students’ self-esteem, and engender excessive anxiety and resentment in students. The effects of these practices often continue long after graduation, causing former students to suffer throughout much of their adult lives.” Page 44. And in his conclusion to the book on page 178, he says: “.....millions of children in this country are presently attending schools whose pedagogical practices harm them in serious ways. The harm could be characterized in the most general terms as a severe repression of their minds and bodies.”
Let us call educational manipulation, subservience, the perpetuation of ignorance by churches, intellectual abuse.
While the suppression of intellectual growth must be defined as abuse, and discussed across our society as such, other religious abuses are clearly a part of their so-called, “educational process”; violence, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and the priest and parental abuse of children who teach and have assimilated the biblical saying: “Spare the rod and spoil the child,” believing that a good, honest beating, given often and liberally, will help children learn.
The instillation of ignorance and an inability to choose is part of religion’s educational history and heritage. However, the way in which ignorance and the inability to choose are part of the physical/mental abuse of the churches by the use of fear. As Al Gore says in his book: The Assault On Reason, page 23;
“Fear is the most powerful enemy of reason. Both fear and reason are essential to human survival, but the relationship between them is unbalanced. Reason may sometimes fear, but fear frequently shuts down reason. As Edmund Burke wrote in England twenty years before the American Revolution, ‘No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.’ “
The evocation of fear in believers by religions is easy to see and understand: fear of gods, fear of god’s actions against them, fear of retribution, fear of damnation, fear of the afterlife (where religions preach this), fear of divine retribution including being cast into hell, fear of social exclusion, fear of priest’s anger, fear of death and dying and so on and on. However, while we can see and understand these fears, they are not so easy to see, openly, in education. But they include: fear of pain, fear of violence, fear of exclusion by other students, fear of teacher rage, fear of moving outside defined “learning” parameters, fear of not “learning” enough, fear of “learning” too much, fear of teacher contradiction, fear of school-or-class-wide humiliation, fear of religious retribution, fear of being reported to parents
I remember the fear I had beaten into me by a Catholic Brother/teacher of math in fourth grade. I was not a good math student and so I was beaten almost every day - usually with a fifteen inch wooden ruler on the back of my bare legs (we wore shorts to school), on my shoulders, on my head, on my hands, on the end of my fingers and wrists and on my buttocks. The beatings were systematic, designed to be very painful, but to leave few marks, and to provide a threat to provoke fear, which they did. The man who delivered the beatings always smiled while doing it, and always derided the children who cried, calling them, “....sissies, cowards, and babies....” and encouraging other students in the class to boo them, to hiss at them, and to victimize them.
It is quite clear that religious institutions and organizations actively promote intellectual abuse and other forms of abuse in the classroom and other “learning” environments as an integral part of their faith-based systems. Charles Selengut in his book, Understanding Religious Violence, refers to an essay by Donald Capps, a professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect Together, in which Capps asserts that the religious socialization of children leads to child abuse. “Capps’ position is that religion demands, above all, behavioral conformity, and religious parents coerce children, sometimes with abuse and violence, to obediently follow the path of religious conformity, frequently to their own detriment.”
Although Capps’ essay has been criticized by the religious as an indictment of religion vis-a-vis their treatment and education of children, it is interesting to note that this kind of abusive behavior as an integral part of religious behavior is encouraged and even demanded by notorious religious educators/pastors such as James Dobson (Dobson, recently named "The Most Influential Evangelical Leader in America" by Christianity Today magazine, is president of a non-profit called “Focus on the Family”, provides a radio show of the same name, and is founder of the “Family Research Council.”) Dobson wrote a book called, Dare to Discipline, and in a section called; “The Best Opportunity to Communicate Often Occurs After Punishment,” he says:
“Nothing brings a parent and child closer together than for the mother or
father to win decisively after being defiantly challenged. This is particularly
true if the child ‘was asking for it,’ knowing full well that he deserved what
he got. The parent’s demonstration of his authority builds respect like no
other process, and the child will often reveal his affection when the emotion
has passed. For this reason, the parent should not dread or shrink back
from these confrontations with the child. These occasions should be
anticipated as important events, because they provide the opportunity
to say something to the child that cannot be said at other times. it is not
necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long
way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient
magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely. After the emotional ventilation,
The child will often want to crumple to the breast of his parent, and he should
be welcomed with open, warm, loving arms. At that moment you can talk
heart-to-heart. You can tell him how much you love him, and how important
he is to you. You can explain why he was punished and how he can avoid
the difficulty next time. This kind of communication is not made possible by
other disciplinary measures, including standing the child in the corner or
taking away his fire truck.” Page 23.
In other words, instill fear in the child from an early age by beating them and then explaining why they will get beaten again. The old religious process of instilling fear based on threats of pain to force believers into the conformity described by Donald Capps. A further reference to believers sanctifying violence against children as a “learning” experience is found in the work of Ray Guarendi, who, with Dobson, justifies corporal punishment on religious grounds. “They believe that hitting a child is an obligation imposed by God, just as God expects parents to love and nurture children. Indeed, the two must go hand-in-hand. The child must come to understand that he or she is being hit as an act of love. Fundamentalist Protestants typically cite scriptures to show that children are inherently evil.” From: Beating the Devil Out of Them, page 15, by Murray A. Strauss.
The vision of a god demanding that parents and teachers thrash children in order that they can explain to the children that they love them follows the often bizarre interpretations of holy scriptures by the religious. In the United States, religious beliefs are allowed to sanctify almost any behavior, even the continuous abuse of children in the name of God. This encouragement of religious sadism should stop, but authorities at the state and national level are often the product of such abuse, have abused their own children in the same way, and feel, therefore, that it isn’t too bad. This kind of response to child abuse in any form leads to uncontrolled and excused religious violence of the kind seen countrywide in the Catholic sexual and physical abuse horrors of the last fifteen years and the finding that this has probably been going on for centuries unabatedly excused by leaders of the church, including the Popes. These abuses are taking place and have taken place in the past in, predominantly, educational settings. Dwyer, in his; “Religious Schools V. Children’s Rights”, States it thus:
“The existing evidence supports the empirical hypothesis that the methods and content of instruction intrinsic to the religious mission of Catholic and Fundamentalist schools affect the student in several harmful ways.” (pp 14). Referring to Fundamentalist schooling he has this to say: “....the sociopolitical world view that Fundamentalists share involves “racism, antifeminism, ant-intellectualism, and plutocratic politics. They advocate segregation of the races, traditional subordinate roles for women, and non-interaction with those who do not conform to the Fundamentalist ideal - in particular, nonwhites, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, intellectuals, and liberals. And while insisting on their own constitutional (and God-given) right to exercise their religion without state interference, they do not value religious freedom or diversity more generally but rather wish for America to become a Christian theocracy. Consistent with this political outlook, they discourage independent thinking about religious belief and other matters among their members, and instead demand conformity to the ‘clear’ commands of the Bible; Biblical inerrancy is for Fundamentalists ‘an unconscious metaphor for the repression of all individuality.’ For Fundamentalists, the principle battleground for the hegemony of this public and private orthodoxy is children’s schooling.” (pp16-17).
Bindoon, Mt. Cashel, Stephenville, Ballarat, Kinkora, Artane, Bangor, Kilkenney, St. Joseph’s, Kuper Island, Cape Croker, and St. Anthony's are all Catholic educational/ orphanage institutions found in various parts of the world. Their connection, apart from religious faith, is in their use by Priest and Nun Pedophiles and child abusers to freely rape, beat, deprive of food and warmth, and use as forced labor, children between the ages of 4 and 15, en masse. A number of these places of horror were run by a Catholic group know as the Christian Brothers whose main aim seems to be forced child subservience and sex with children.
In another expose, more widespread child abuse has come to light in Nun run institutions for girls; “Reuters News Service in 2004 told the world of a Roman Catholic order of nuns in Ireland, known as the Congregation of the Sisters of Mary, who had ‘apologized unconditionally for the physical and emotional trauma its nuns had inflicted on children raised in its orphanage and schools.” This abuse had been uncovered in a television expose of enormous maltreatment in Dublin in the 1950’s and 1960’s. (From: “The Sins of Scripture - Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love”, by John Shelby Spong.)
Apart from the acts of violence, themselves, there is strong evidence to suggest that many believers, but especially the religious, are perverted or are prone to perversions. To simply accept that children can be left in the control of religious people, especially priests and pastors, and that they are safe in educational and/or religious institutions must be discounted. The evidence of perverted action by priests and by trusted religious associates is now widespread. The potential for worse is far more widespread:
“According to many Christian groups, pornography is a disturbing
and increasing problem. A Promise Keepers survey found that 53 percent
of its members consume pornography. A 2000 Christianity Today survey
found that 37 percent of pastors said pornography is a "current struggle" of
theirs. Fifty-seven percent called pornography the most sexually damaging
issue for their congregations. A Barna Research Group study released in
February 2007 said that 35 percent of men and 17 percent of women
reported having used pornography in the past month.”
From knowledge manipulation to the exclusion of information, the instilling of fear to question, to be creative, and to learn, to violence in teaching centers and the home, sexual abuse, and the abuse by threat, religious groups provide no acceptable educational opportunities. Because of the freedom of religion statute, it is thought that we must continue to allow churches, temples and mosques free reign in their provision of religious-based education. But the growing abuse of children and learners suggests that authorities must act in two ways: they must control curricula in religious schools and colleges, and they must control the provision of learning experiences by religious “teachers” and the “teachers” themselves. We know about the abuse, we know about the poor educational quality, we know about the stultification of educational opportunity: what else is needed to help the millions of children in abusive religious educational environments to learn in schools that protect them while allowing them to learn the most important skills for citizens in a global world?
Perhaps it is appropriate to give H. L. Mencken the last colorful word about those whose schools we have been discussing:
“What one mainly notices about these ambassadors of Christ, observing
them in the mass, is their colossal ignorance. They constitute, perhaps, the
most ignorant class of teachers ever set up to lead a civilized people; they
are even more ignorant than the county superintendents of schools. Learning,
indeed, is not esteemed in the evangelical denominations, and any literate
plowhand, if the Holy Spirit inflames him, is thought to be fit to preach. Is he
commonly sent, as a preliminary, to a training-camp, to college? But what a
college! You will find one in every mountain valley of the land, with its single
building in its bare pasture lot, and its faculty of half-idiot pedagogues and
broken down preachers. One man, in such a college, teaches oratory, ancient
history, arithmetic and Old Testament exegesis. The aspirant comes in from
the barnyard, and goes back in a year or two to the village. His body of
knowledge is that of a street-car motorman or a movie actor. But he has
learned the clichés of his craft, and he has got him a long-tailed coat, and so
he made his escape from the harsh labors of his ancestors, and is set up as
a fountain of light and learning......It is from such ignoramuses that the American
peasantry gets its view of the cosmos. Certainly Fundamentalism should not
be hard to understand when its sources are inspected. How can a teacher teach
when his own head is empty?” from: H.L. Mencken On Religion, Ed. by S.T.
Joshi, pages 125/126.
Today
Planned Event
