Christian Fundamentalists Caught Torturing Children to Death

[Prannon]

This topic really makes me think back to my childhood. I have memories of being a rather wild and open kid, prone to disciplinary problems. Like I would say things without thinking, get into trouble for talking when I wasn't supposed to, things like that. I got spanked, A LOT. I don't even remember most of the things I got spanked for, but some of them were things like back talking, being rude to people, lying, and so on.

Anyway, by the time I had turned 10 or 11, I was scared of being spanked all the time. In one episode, I did poorly on an assignment while in school because I didn't quite understand what the teacher wanted me to do, and my mother got so angry that she threatened to spank me if I didn't get a good grade. I was crying while my dad got my brother and I ready for bed because I just knew that I wouldn't be able to do it.

Afterwards, mom and dad started phasing spankings out and using groundings instead, which probably had a better effect because of the inconvenience they caused. Still, I was kinda like Liberty Ferall. I tried to be the perfect child and didn't do anything wrong. Went to church and sucked in the fundamentalism and avoided doing anything that my parents disapproved of or which might get me into trouble. It wasn't until about halfway through college that I realized the truth I had believed in was an elaborate lie, a curtain around the real world. Ironically, I went to a private Baptist school. My parents don't really understand what went wrong.

I suppose, using my life only as an anecdote, heavy handed corporeal punishment only serves to create fear. It doesn't actually make the child think about why they're in trouble, or why what they're doing is wrong, and this is very important. At the school I work at, kindergartners behave better if they understand why they're in trouble, not if you just yell at them out of being angry. I do that a lot... I think it'll also stifle creative risk taking. I often feel like I missed out on a lot because I was too afraid of getting into trouble, and I still miss out on a lot because of that same thing today.

[sketerpot]

This topic really makes me think back to my childhood. I have memories of being a rather wild and open kid, prone to disciplinary problems. Like I would say things without thinking, get into trouble for talking when I wasn't supposed to, things like that. I got spanked, A LOT. I don't even remember most of the things I got spanked for, but some of them were things like back talking, being rude to people, lying, and so on.

Oh man, "back talking." That brings back memories. All of these childhood memories involve roughly the following sequence of events:

1. An adult gets angry at me for a reason that is never explained to me.

2. I ask for clarification, confused.

3. The adult flips the fuck out at me for talking back.

Even now, many years later, I still seethe with impotent fury at the recollection. Please, people, make sure kids understand why you're punishing them. It sucks when it's arbitrary.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Like a lot of other people on here, I ended up on the business end of a belt quite often as a child as well. Generally, my mother would handle the daily "discpline" aound the house, and dad was only called in (or barged in depending on the situation) when you were REALLY about to get it.

As I recall, "mommy" spankings were never paricularly bad. Myself or one of my siblings would get marched off to the room (or dragged by a firm grip on the arm if we were feeling combative), and we would get a good three or four swats on the butt with whichever belt (ruler, etca) happened to be handy at the time, followed by a "I love you, but you got spanked for X, Y, or Z reason" speech which I grew to absolutely loathe after a while. They were generally dished out for things like being a brat or otherwise making a spectacle out of yourself in public, talking back (though that was never really an issue in my house), or doing something you were explictly told not to do (like running off to a friend's house for a few hours when I was told to only play in the yard).

Daddy spankings on the other hand...well, let's just say that if my mother was one of those little hawaiian volcanoes which is constantly streaming lava, he would be Mt. Saint Helens.

I have the greatest respect for my father. He is an exceedingly calm and intelligent guy most of the time, and he taught me all kinds of invaluable lessons on various subjects as a kid that I didn't learn again until college. However, he is NOT particularly good with little kids. He has a hair-line temper, and no patience whatsoever for when he feels that someone isn't getting something that he feels should be apparently obvious. I remember that any attempt to have him help me with my homework as a child would result in me sitting there, scared shitless, while he either screamed at me over some irrelevant detail and/or smacked me for giving him the wrong answer. I'm 22 years old, militray trained, and a good 3 inches taller than he is and I STILL jump a little when he raises his voice and I'm not expecting it. When he "disciplined" me or one of my siblings, it tended to be quite a bit more, errr..."spontaneous and energetic," though it never actually reached a level any where near child abuse.

In his defense, however; both of his parents seem to have been like that, and I was the eldest. My mother and father were only like 23 when they had me. By the time he had hit 35 or so, he had calmed down pretty significantly. My younger siblings didn't get it any where near as bad as I did.

[The Yosemite Bear]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Is not parenting

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

The scary part is that I know I've inherited his temper, though I seem to have thankfully gotten more of my mother's patience.

While I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of a swat on the butt every now and then when a child acts out, I have no intention of putting my kids through all the nonsense I had to go through as a child.

[UnderAGreySky]

Oh man, "back talking." That brings back memories. All of these childhood memories involve roughly the following sequence of events:

1. An adult gets angry at me for a reason that is never explained to me.

2. I ask for clarification, confused.

3. The adult flips the fuck out at me for talking back.

Even now, many years later, I still seethe with impotent fury at the recollection. Please, people, make sure kids understand why you're punishing them. It sucks when it's arbitrary.

Oh man, do I know that or what!

Second grade, native language teacher asks "Have you done your homework?" And I answer - this is 6/7 year old me - "No, we were out all evening yesterday".

Next thing I know she's shouting at me for "back-answering" (very Indian lingo) and sends a note with me to call my parents to school. Since that day I've had a bit of a fear of authority that has only abated in the last few years as I've developed confidence in myself (and an ability to recognize worst-case scenarios).

At home, though, the smack-on-the-back was the worst that mum did. And that too, very rarely. Come home late? Stand outside the door till dinner time (we live in a block of apartments, very safe). Not eating your food? Stay hungry. Did not do something in class (in spite of repeated reminders)? No play-time. Worked well.

And dad... he's never yet raised his voice at me, let alone his hands. With all three kids (and two of the neighbour's), he'd gently ask us to do something. If we didn't, he'd ask us again. Third time, "I'm asking you for the third time, please do...". If not, "I'm going to count to three, and I want it done."

Till date, none of us know what he will do at "Three". Neighbour's youngest got till two, which I think is a record.

There's another cool story...

Grandpa was well respected in the family and in the building they lived in. Family that lived on the third storey (mine lived on the second) was mother and two sons, one teenage and one younger. The father had died before, and a working mum meant the elder kid was fast becoming undisciplined. They would have shouting matches, the kid would spend time standing with street thugs/bad sorts. Out of desperation their mum tells my grandpa to "Do something to help, please".

So granddad calls Vijay over. Kid, all of sixteen, is staring defiantly at him.

Granddad asks, in the gentlest of voices, "Vijay, why do you do this?"

Kid pauses, opens-and-shuts his mouth several times, and breaks out crying. Enrols into a training class next day, graduates, takes up a job in a bank. He retires this decade, married with kids, having lived a comfortable life.

But he never could look my granddad in the eye. Wept at his funeral, when I couldn't.

[DPDarkPrimus]

One time in middle school a teacher, while bitching me out in the hall about something, said "How many times do I have to tell you this before it sticks?"

I looked at her and then away, and then back again, because the pause was getting really awkward, and then she says "NO ANSWER, HUH?"

Ah, yes, because I was supposed to come up with a number for your rhetorical question?

[hongi]

Created to Be His Help Meet

Holy shit this is such a disturbing mentality.

If you are married to a king, honor and reverence is something you must give him on a daily basis if you want him to be a benevolent, honest, strong, and fulfilled man of God. He has the potential to become an amazing leader. Never shame him, and do not belittle him or ignore his accomplishments. Make it your life’s goal to become his queen.

What the fuck?

[Aaron]

Thats certainly an interesting way to spin, "your married to an asshole, don't piss him off."

[Liberty]

Created to Be His Help Meet

Holy shit this is such a disturbing mentality.

If you are married to a king, honor and reverence is something you must give him on a daily basis if you want him to be a benevolent, honest, strong, and fulfilled man of God. He has the potential to become an amazing leader. Never shame him, and do not belittle him or ignore his accomplishments. Make it your life’s goal to become his queen.

What the fuck?

That's not the half of it. That book instructs wives to obey their husbands no matter what and in fact not even ever question them (they give only a few exceptions when you should not obey: if the husband wants you to do something illegal (i.e., steal), if the husband asks you to watch porn with him, or if he wants to ass-fuck you). They tell women that even if your husband is abusing you you should stay with him, because if you're truly submissive, sweet, good-tempered, and long-suffering, the abusing husband will realize he is wrong and turn to Jesus.

Read some of the testimonials on the site (http://nogreaterjoy.org/blogs/createdto ... stimonies/). Here's a real gem:

“ I’m so excited! Submission is a choice I am responsible for! I’m not brainwashed by the word! I’m not a doormat; I am brave. I’m not a martyr; I am standing by my man because I see God’s perfect plan, and in the end I am happier and so is my husband.(Not trying to toot my own horn – just figured it out). ”

I own the book. I was given it and told it was the best book on marriage I would ever read. When my mom is around, she expects my husband, not me, to give the orders, and even if he expresses a desire, that's law. Example:

Me: Mom, could you take this cooler home with you when you leave today? It's your cooler, it just got left here a few months ago.

Surlethe: Wait, my school papers are in that cooler.

Me: Yes, but I want that cooler out of my house. It's cluttering things up. I'll put your papers in another container. Or, you could sort them and put them in folders. Seriously, I want that cooler out of the house.

Mom: That's fine, I'll leave the cooler. You guys can return it later.

[Serafina]

Paraphrased, but not kidding:

If your husband molests your children, ask him to repent. If he does, that's it. If he does not, report him. If he goes to jail, remain his faithfull wife and visit him as often as you can until he gets out. No matter what, he is still the rightfull father of his children.

What the FUCK?!. Seriously, you can not even dump your husband if he rapes your own children?
Seriously, i think those people are as messed up as humanly possible without being an insane, babbling wreck.

[Serafina]

Gettho-edit:

For those who want to read the orignal passage (spoiler to prevent accidental exposure): Spoiler

If your husband is sexually abusing the children, or if he is bone-breaking violent, take it to the church. If he does not immediately repent and come under discipline, call the law and have him arrested. Whining promises followed by promises and broken promises and more promises is not acceptable. After being confronted for sexually abusing the children, if your husband does not repent in sackcloth and ashes, to never do it again, turn him over to the authorities. Testify against him, and when he gets three to twenty years in the pen, go to visit him and faithfully wait for him to get out.

Taken from here, fifth paragraph from the bottom.

[Liberty]

Paraphrased, but not kidding:

If your husband molests your children, ask him to repent. If he does, that's it. If he does not, report him. If he goes to jail, remain his faithfull wife and visit him as often as you can until he gets out. No matter what, he is still the rightfull father of his children.

What the FUCK?!. Seriously, you can not even dump your husband if he rapes your own children?
Seriously, i think those people are as messed up as humanly possible without being an insane, babbling wreck.

Did I mention that this book also teaches that wives must have sex with their husbands every three days or so at least, and if they don't their husbands will go elsewhere to find sex, and justifiably so?

[Serafina]

Paraphrased, but not kidding:

If your husband molests your children, ask him to repent. If he does, that's it. If he does not, report him. If he goes to jail, remain his faithfull wife and visit him as often as you can until he gets out. No matter what, he is still the rightfull father of his children.

What the FUCK?!. Seriously, you can not even dump your husband if he rapes your own children?
Seriously, i think those people are as messed up as humanly possible without being an insane, babbling wreck.

Did I mention that this book also teaches that wives must have sex with their husbands every three days or so at least, and if they don't their husbands will go elsewhere to find sex, and justifiably so?

[Serafina]

Damn, it should read like this:

If your husband molests your children, ask him to repent. If he does, that's it. If he does not, report him. If he goes to jail, remain his faithfull wife and visit him as often as you can until he gets out. No matter what, he is still the rightfull father of his children.

Seriously, i think those people are as messed up as humanly possible without being an insane, babbling wreck.

Did I mention that this book also teaches that wives must have sex with their husbands every three days or so at least, and if they don't their husbands will go elsewhere to find sex, and justifiably so?

You did.
I find that actually less offensive/bad than tolerating the rape of your own children.
Compared to that, advising women to have sex with their husband regulary and scaring them that he will betray them otherwise is really not that bad - only in comparision, but still.

[Liberty]

Damn, it should read like this:

Did I mention that this book also teaches that wives must have sex with their husbands every three days or so at least, and if they don't their husbands will go elsewhere to find sex, and justifiably so?

You did.
I find that actually less offensive/bad than tolerating the rape of your own children.
Compared to that, advising women to have sex with their husband regulary and scaring them that he will betray them otherwise is really not that bad - only in comparision, but still.

I would agree, but I should point out that technically the authors argue that if the husband is molesting the children the wife should (a) get him to repent and stop or (b) get him thrown in prison. So I don't really see "tolerating" there. And in fact, in other sections, the Pearls go to great lengths in showing families how to make sure their children don't get molested by other people, either extended family members or strangers. I would say that the Pearls are wrong here on (at least) two points: (1) giving the husband a second chance if he repents may just result in him doing the same thing again and (2) taking the abused children with you to visit the husband in prison would probably be emotionally scarring to them.

[Serafina]

I object to two things:
-they give the molester a second chance which he does not deserve. Seriously, they demand that the wife doesnt tell on him if he confesses and repents.
-Giving rules when you are in a functional marriage is okay - but demanding that you literary stay with your husband no matter what?

And yes, taking the abused children to the father and telling them that he is still their father and that they still have to obey them is about the worst thing you can do to them in that situation.

[Broomstick]

What the FUCK?!. Seriously, you can not even dump your husband if he rapes your own children?
Seriously, i think those people are as messed up as humanly possible without being an insane, babbling wreck.

No, Serafina, these people feel divorce is wrong for any reason whatsoever. No exceptions. It's that whole bit about once you have sex you're "one flesh" and inseprably intertwined so if you made a bad choice too fucking bad, you're stuck forever. Or at least until one of you dies.

Did I mention that this book also teaches that wives must have sex with their husbands every three days or so at least, and if they don't their husbands will go elsewhere to find sex, and justifiably so?

You did.
I find that actually less offensive/bad than tolerating the rape of your own children.
Compared to that, advising women to have sex with their husband regulary and scaring them that he will betray them otherwise is really not that bad - only in comparision, but still.

But don't you see - if a man molests his children it's because his wife isn't giving him enough sex! It's her fault!

I used to work in a place that was full of these types. I used to fuck with the women's heads - "You're supposed to obey your husband in all things, right? So if he decides to convert to Satanism and wants you to do so as well.... what do you do? Oh, so you're going to continue to follow Jesus, alright, but doesn't that sort of screw up the "obey your husband in all things" bit? Oh, so you don't have to obey him all things, after all? Well, how do decide where to draw the line?"

[Liberty]

I used to work in a place that was full of these types. I used to fuck with the women's heads - "You're supposed to obey your husband in all things, right? So if he decides to convert to Satanism and wants you to do so as well.... what do you do? Oh, so you're going to continue to follow Jesus, alright, but doesn't that sort of screw up the "obey your husband in all things" bit? Oh, so you don't have to obey him all things, after all? Well, how do decide where to draw the line?"

Hahahahahahahaha!

Seriously though, I have a big question for Debi Pearl: You say that women are supposed to obey their husbands and do as their husbands say. You several times differ to your husband in the book, letting him write a heavy section, etc, because he is your head and therefore what he believes and says is what you believe and do. So, what if a woman's husband does not share your (i.e., the Pearls') religious beliefs or beliefs about how marriage should function? Shouldn't the wife differ to her husband and believe as he does, just as you tell them to in your book? Seriously, what the crap?!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I just reread through the thread, and I have just one question. Can we prosecute these Pearl people for fomenting totalitarianism and torture already? I know it's a Constitutionally gray area, but this is nothing short of an instruction manual on how to convert a free, enlightened civilization into a fascist dictatorship through mass torture and indoctrination of children or threats of same. This fits all the criteria for a functioning definition of 'Terrorism' just as much as Joe Stack's Kamikaze attack last week. These monsters want to use fear of pain and suffering to completely change our society by training these kids not to resist any orders by authority no matter how illegal, immoral, or destructive. How long before these human servitors so manufactured get ordered to act as guidance systems and detonators for belts made of dynamite and rusty nails?

Yes, I compared these fucktards to Al Qaeda. In my opinion, the difference is merely one of degrees. Fuck these bastards!

[Broomstick]

Nope, can't prosecute for the book. Even repugnant speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Any attempts to put it into the practice, though, might be a different matter....

[UnderAGreySky]

This is quickly bringing back memories of The Handmaid's Tale and in no good way.

[Simon_Jester]

This is quickly bringing back memories of The Handmaid's Tale and in no good way.

I have never heard of that work, so far as I can recall. Should I be glad I haven't?

One time in middle school a teacher, while bitching me out in the hall about something, said "How many times do I have to tell you this before it sticks?"
I looked at her and then away, and then back again, because the pause was getting really awkward, and then she says "NO ANSWER, HUH?"
Ah, yes, because I was supposed to come up with a number for your rhetorical question?

Easy-peasy, my friend!

If it's something stupid, the answer is "five billion, two hundred and eighty seven." If it's something you already figured out and they're being stupid by not realizing that, the answer is "negative six."

Read some of the testimonials on the site (http://nogreaterjoy.org/blogs/createdto ... stimonies/). Here's a real gem:

“ I’m so excited! Submission is a choice I am responsible for! I’m not brainwashed by the word! I’m not a doormat; I am brave. I’m not a martyr; I am standing by my man because I see God’s perfect plan, and in the end I am happier and so is my husband.(Not trying to toot my own horn – just figured it out). ”

I own the book. I was given it and told it was the best book on marriage I would ever read. When my mom is around, she expects my husband, not me, to give the orders, and even if he expresses a desire, that's law. Example:

Me: Mom, could you take this cooler home with you when you leave today? It's your cooler, it just got left here a few months ago.
Surlethe: Wait, my school papers are in that cooler.
Me: Yes, but I want that cooler out of my house. It's cluttering things up. I'll put your papers in another container. Or, you could sort them and put them in folders. Seriously, I want that cooler out of the house.
Mom: That's fine, I'll leave the cooler. You guys can return it later.

...Wow. You know, I cannot imagine any woman who actually believes this dreck being marriageable, because for practical purposes she'd have no damn brains. No intelligent anticipation, no ability to correct my mistakes or complement my weaknesses. Wouldn't it be like sharing a house with a self-propelled blowup doll*?

God. That's just... disturbing. I'd rather marry almost anyone than that kind of autolobotomist. [shudders]

*(possibly with chatbot functionality)?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Nope, can't prosecute for the book. Even repugnant speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Any attempts to put it into the practice, though, might be a different matter....

Good point, which is why I alluded to the Constitutional issues. We therefore come down like sixteen tons of bricks onto whoever does put this reprehensible shit into practice.

[Simon_Jester]

Appendix to my previous post:

You know, I can finally see how the "gay marriage threatens traditional marriage!" argument starts to make sense if we define traditional marriage a lá Pearl. I'm pretty darn straight, but if you force me to choose between a woman who shut down her higher cognitive functions the moment she said "I do" and marrying a man who didn't... well, I'm not attracted to either of them, but I'm unattracted in surprisingly similar degrees.

I imagine women would feel the same way in reverse, only more so because they're the ones being expected to shut down their brains.

Wow. We've finally found a type of traditional marriage that would be credibly threatened by gay marriage, because that would be a more appealing alternative. Impressive.