Shunning

Shunning

Posted on March 2, 2013

Shunning: [Part I]

There’s been a lot of talk lately in the blogosphere corners I frequent regarding Shunning. It has prompted me to write down a few thoughts on what shunning means to me personally.
The very thought of the word absolutely sends shivers down my spine. Shunning is indicative of pure ruthless, social rejection, a thing I grew up with in Goldenbridge. I also associate it with children who were very friendly with each other in the penalised institution, who, alas, were ridiculed and separated from each other by the staff. They were called ‘love birds’ then castigated and shunned. There were also children who were different from others, and they too were deliberately avoided by other children and not allowed to associate with the group. Children who did not know the meaning of mother or father figures should not have been subjected to shunning by those who were supposed to be acting in loco-parentis. The children, on the other hand, who turned their backs on other children, were only doing what was expected of them. It was learned behaviour. A warped environment begets warped behaviour. 
Mother and father figures are most important in children’s lives and deprivation of them was punishment enough, without having to be shunned by grown-ups. Mother and father words meant nothing to institutionalised inmates…excepting that they were words synonymous with beatings, whereby children had hollered out those very words…’O Mammy…O Daddy’ after a big thick shiny polished bark of a tree had been reined down on them after having spent hours upon end on a cold landing awaiting in dreaded anticipation of said floggings by the nun in charge.
 Child inmates were also prevented from knowing / speaking to the nuns in the convent. The latter were just like aliens from another planet. When child inmates dared to look back at them sitting in their personal convent chapel pews, with black hooded heads completely hidden and matching black gown trails sprawling all over the aisles. They rather remind me of the TV advert of the ghost of death who – on one stormy blizzard night knocks on the door of one Mrs. O’Connor. The ghost beckons to her to come along, that it was waiting for her. Fortunately for the blind aged woman, she saw not his black skeleton hooded demeanour and decided not to go with him, saying that she was busy cooking Xmas mince pies. Or – when they came to the Rec [“wreck”] hall on an annual basic to watch a film. Their black robes matched perfectly with the black cloths that covered the windows. The nuns were never allowed to have any personal interaction with GB child inmates. They were totally shunned. Goldenbridge and industrial *schools* were used as weapons to frighten children in their homes – who were deemed bold. “Now, if you don’t behave properly we’ll send you to the nuns at Goldenbridge.” [Insert institution.] The threats invariably worked, as no child wanted to be seen dead in an unfriendly institution.

Shunning happens when groups form solidarity with each other. It happens to religious groups and tightly knit organisations and communities. The intended targets can be seen as enemies. Goldenbridge child inmates were easy shunning targets because they were seen by everyone as defenceless humble targets with nobody to look out for them. Children in the nearby ‘outside’ national school in the same grounds were warned that they were not to glance at or dare to speak to children from GB industrial school. Woe-betide them if they chanced to do so. That also included children who were related in some way to the inmates. There was a stigma attached to children who were deemed the lowest of the lowest by Irish society. Think Untouchables [Dalits.]

Shunning [Part 2]: Scrawny pigeon analogy

I think that I make assumptions about people SHUNNING me, because of looking through very disturbed emotional lens. I do know that I’ve the propensity to get triggers, and because of these triggers everything can get super-heightened and writing can become disproportionately illogical and irrational. Think confirmation bias. It creeps into a lot of stuff. I think it comes into play a lot and perhaps distorts reality. I don’t, however, know how to fix the distortions. Rational thinking just goes out the door when there are trigger factors involved. It had been said to me by someone known that you “read backward from the intensity of your emotion to the (imagined) malice of other people. The more you hurt, the more malicious they are. Everybody does that, but you do it in an exaggerated way.” Yes, that pinpoints to it exactly. It has to do with tremendous feelings of inferiority from the past. The template for this was laid in Goldenbridge, and it forever replays the same old “you will never amount to anything’ spiel that was perpetually flung in the direction of child inmates. The lack of feeling validated eternally encompasses my very being. 
I know that I’ve been immensely scarred by an excruciatingly painful childhood spent in a Victorian child prison refuge. All my memories are filled with so much torturous acts. For example: I have vivid recollections of scrumptious scraps of Marietta biscuits, soldier crusts of toast, and particles of cake from St. Ita’s staff table, that were placed by minor staff in an aluminium sieve, and each day methodically flung out of the corridor window that faced directly onto the prison yard ground, that Christine Buckley once said “where the sun never shone.” Child inmates instantaneously flung themselves to the ground and fiercely grabbed at the luscious leavings. The ‘scraps’ were as regular as clockwork, so inmates would have eagerly awaited their anticipation, as the scraps were considered rare sumptuous food items. Inmates, who never had toast to eat would gobble down the black burnt bits, as if they were like expensive oysters. Dog-fights ensued. Some inmates snatched not only the gorgeous tasty scraps, but also the hair on heads – the little that was left, anyway, – after-all getting heads shorn and cut short was the norm – of some inmates, and locked themselves into each other for a half an hour or so, at any given time, as they were so enraged at each other for getting the best scraps. The staff thought theses scenarios were hilarious. They thrived on inmates being viscous towards each other. 
I also remember on rare occasions such as feast-days when child inmates with index fingers firmly placed in the centre of their lips – who were sat on hard benches in the REC (euphemistically known as “the wreck” because of the savage beatings that regularly occurred there by staff members when the nuns were up praying in the convent) were given two or three bulls-eye sweets. If a dislike was taken to a child, the staff member because she might have taken her finger off her lips – with the shiny silver mirrored can with delicate handle – would bypass that particular child, and the one sitting next to it got extra sweets, so as to rub it in even more. The horrible staff member – hugging the can – would then glide along the benches with a smirk on her face. It not only caused terrible tension in the child who was left sweet-less but also to the rest of the onlookers who wondered whether they were going to suffer the same ignominious despicable fate. Shunning innocent children was normal behaviour.

These vivid cruel Goldenbridge memories, that I can relate to where feelings of cruelty and being shunned come very strongly into play.

Fast forward as a young adult: 
I remember years ago during lunch-hour from my job at the specialised Metallurgical library at Carton House Terrace in London – strolling around nearby St. James’ Park. I stood for a long while watching the pigeons being fed by various people, including myself. There was one particular scrawny pigeon who, instead of vying for the nuts and the like that were lovingly strewn on the ground, had decided to constantly chase the other birds away, so that they wouldn’t get all the rich pickings. Alas, the worn out scraggy pigeon was doing itself a terrible injustice. Indeed, it was its own worst enemy, because, if it sincerely had any wit at all it would have joined in, in gathering the nuts, instead of defeating the object by daftly chasing away the other pigeons, who were clearly benefitting greatly from the sumptuous healthy bird feed. However, I could identify with the scrawny pigeon so much, as it clearly had no insight. Because if it had it would have been as self-seeking and cunning as the rest of the pigeons and thought of itself in a flawless commonsensical manner. The scrawny pigeon’s actions reminded me of all the negative energy I had wasted going after assumed shunning sources. It’s uninspiring to think of all the negative energy that’s harboured in the brain, with all the good energy gone to waste? Just like the klutzy pigeon too it’s spinning / chasing away at the wrong sources.

When I returned to Ireland from Birmingham in the mid-eighties I resided in Ballyjamesduff, Co Cavan. It is a small rural town in the province of Ulster, which now comprises of less than 2,000 inhabitants. It laid fame to Paddy Reilly, who immortalised it in song, and Father Brendan Smyth, who was a notorious paedophile – who in the early nineties almost brought the Irish government to its knees because of the child abuse scandals. In this community I experienced shunning on a gargantuan scale by a certain section of that close-knit society. I put the shunning down to not having had any proper position, or family status, and also due to being friendly with an unmarried mother, who was shunned by large swathes of the community. Some townies would cross the other side of the main street to avoid her. I witnessed it on so many occasions and was absolutely infuriated with their low-down ignorant behaviour. Think fallen woman. She was hardened to the hostility, as she grew up in the town and was cognisant of the two-faced shenanigans of some specific insular folk. The same community that mostly never spoke out about alleged heinous crimes of the aforementioned priest for fear of offending the religious. The hypocrisy knew no bounds. Here’s an example of a worse case shunning scenario of a pregnant young woman in Granard – not very far from Ballyjamesduff – and the dire consequences that unfolded because of having lived in a town that shunned girls and women who bore children out of wedlock.

For there before the two lads lay the half-naked figure of 15 year old Ann Lovett, whimpering in shock and pain, gritting her teeth through tears, delirious and mumbling. Beside Ann, in a pool of blood, lay her still-born baby boy which she had just delivered, alone and unaided, there below the statue of the Virgin. Beside the dead child lay its placenta, severed from Ann’s body by a pair of scissors she had been carrying around in her school bag for several weeks now, in preparation for this very event.

Read more: A History of Sexuality In Ireland [2]: The Nineteen Eighties –

I also lived in a bed-sit, and that alone would have been frowned upon by other snootier townie elements who were won’t to steering clear of those less fortunate. Survival of the fittest! The status quo had at all times to be maintained to preserve their superior status – one mustn’t let themselves be contaminated by the mere riff-raff who wandered out of nowhere into town, and even worse still, a returning emigrant. I was considered a blow-in. In small towns everyone must know everyone else’s business. They have to know one’s intergenerational antecedents. My Goldenbridge institutional past was surreptitiously well-kept secret. I had never spoken to a sinner in my entire life about my childhood. In fact, I had spent my entire time in England concocting stories about a family that never existed. I created them to suit the occasion. A lot of survivors of industrial *schools* would know exactly what I’m talking about here, as they would have resorted to similar survival tactics. I was completely unaware of the trap I was falling into upon deciding to live in a wee town in the valley of the squinting windows. My mother and her husband had lived three miles away in the country, so hence falling naturally into that situation. Besides, I never would have dreamt of going to live in Dublin, as I was actually afraid of any association connected to Goldenbridge. It actually took me ten years to come to terms with facing Dublin. To this day I still cannot go back to the industrial *school area*, as it would have the propensity to freak me out something terrible. I thought I was safe in a small town, but no, not at all. The opposite. In fact – I felt very strongly about not being accepted and shunned by certain sections of society in Ballyjamesduff, that I was compelled to mention it some while ago in a wee article I wrote about Ballyjamesduff. To me it appeared like shunning. An example. There was a particular incident where I went to an audition to join The Frolic’s, Musical Society. A whole group of people that were known to me by sight was in full conversation on my arrival to the audition. There was suddenly utter silence when I entered the room. One person even got up from her seat to move away from me, when I sat down in the chair beside her. I was so mortified that that I quietly went into the loo and disappeared. I know that I was in a bad place with respect of familial problems, and it would have showed in my demeanour. I thought that by entering into a hobby that I was very interested in, that it would bring me out of myself, and help me to get back on my feet. I was floored, as the amount of courage it took me to even contemplate on going there, knowing that a lot of them would not even bid me the time of day on the street was devastating to the psyche. I just didn’t have the emotional skills to turn it around and change things, as such emotional energy had heretofore been drained because of having to continually cover up about my past.

Related: Ballyjamesduff Co.Cavan Revisited | Marie-Thérèse O’Loughlin …

Shunning [Part 111]

To this day I carry the residue of shame that stems from shunning that was bestowed on me relentlessly as a child in Goldenbridge. I get paranoid thinking that parts of in the blogosphere that I frequent is out to shun me, in the same way, that was done to me in Goldenbridge. I become convinced that if bloggers don’t interact with me personally, well, it certainly has to do with me not being intellectually good enough to be in their Interwebz presence.

Shunning is such a barbaric practice. Shunning is probably used to give people a kind of false power over ‘perceived’ enemies. Shunning is bad and should not be practiced on one’s own worst enemies. Shunning is unhealthy. Reducing oneself to employing an inhumane practice that is known to cause severe mental, emotional psychological, trauma only defeats the object. Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorised as torture.
Yes, shunning can cause severe psychological damage and should not be condoned by those who think it a corrective measure to use towards those whom they feel need punishing in this way because they don’t conform to their way of behaviour or thinking. Shunning is like placing the recipients in mental prisons. People should not use the power of the group to place people in precarious odious places.
Children in Goldenbridge industrial *school* should not have been shunned, as they had to already withstand being shunned by their mere incarceration. It should have been the practice of caregivers to embrace them and not to have continually sent them to Coventry. They suffered enough punishment. Shunning belongs to incestuous organisations and should under no circumstances be a part of the mindsets of those who seek to gain higher knowledge of the world around them. A group that insulates itself won’t evolve properly. Using jungle like behaviour such as shunning so that it will bring about law and order is antediluvian. Not to be recommended at all. I reiterate. Shunning can cause people to die. Shunning can cause people to commit suicide. Shunning can wreak untold damage.

As a survivor of an industrial school who suffers with PTSD, I would ask people in authority to think carefully before using shunning methods on people. If you find it difficult to understand the mental emotional make-up of people don’t play around in a labyrinthine shunning garden. I should add here that survivors of industrial schools suffer with every conceivable personality disorder, early childhood attachment loss, lack of education and every multitude of ailments there are to be found in the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. So if there are people who want to shun them because they perhaps seek approval, suffer with loneliness because of their incapability in being able to conform to the proper societal norms, they should think twice.

Shunning Religious Comparisons [Part 1V]

I wanted to find some religious shunning comparisons, so came across following information.

Exploring Amish Country.com says on its ‘shunning’ website page:

…[W]hen you are shunned, you are treated as if you’re a total outsider. The Amish Church forbids any member of the Church to give you any social standing. Amish shunning divides families and causes much heartache in the Amish community.

I also did not have to look further than Ophelia Benson’s butterfliesandwheels. FTB blog to find out more ‘shunning’ information on the Amish.

On September 13th, 2012, Ophelia says in her Big Amish Brother post:

Have you seen “Breaking Amish”? It’s pretty fascinating – in how horrible the Amish life is. It’s not just in all the deprivation (no school past 8th grade for you!) and rules (as one rebel says, “you can wear this but not that…”) – it’s the revolting coldness of “shunning.” If you step out, you’re […]…

Read the rest Big Amish Brother

The Amish shunning quite reminded me in a sizable way of the shunning that occurred at Goldenbridge where even the nuns up the way – not to mention local children from the ‘outside’ national school adjacent to the convent were warned not to have anything to do with children from the industrial school, lest they be contaminated by their lowly presence. The revolting coldness of shunning in both case scenarios was absolutely shockingly suppressive. It was just not going to school and working in a laundry and making rosary beads in a secret factory, or no school past 8th grade for the Amish that had to be contended. It was the inhumane practice of shunning. Nonetheless, compared to the practices of some sects and cultures, Amish shunning seems quite mild.

Some ultra-orthodox Jewish congregations, for example, go so far as to hold funerals for former members who decide to marry outside the religion.

I discovered some quotes on shunning which are from various other religious perspectives that were deemed noteworthy to mention here despite being written a decade ago at ReligionNewsBlog.com •

Karen McCowan says Many religions remove members

Tuesday March 4, 2003

“Such shunning is “a fairly common practice of radical reformation sects, groups that tend to be drawn in very much on themselves,” said Carl Raschke, a Denver University religious studies professor.”

Also:

“Other practitioners include certain Old Order Mennonite and Amish communities, Hutterites and the Bruderhof.”

I didn’t explore individual Islamic cults. However, this quote from Karen McCowan sums up succinctly the same fate as what happens to Jewish extremist groups.

And in some extremist Islamic groups around the world, apostasy (renunciation of faith) is considered punishable by death – witness the bounty placed on author Salman Rushdie after he was branded an apostate for “The Satanic Verses.”

One would think that being shunned by scientologists would be a welcome relief from all the brainwashing:

Scientology shunning, called “disconnection”, forbids its members from interacting with a “suppressive” person. No calls, no letters, no contact.

 Sourced: Many religions remove members

It’s very sad to learn that suicide attempts are not uncommon with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Re: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Shunning

…[I]t is a common trait among esoteric movements that claim to be “the Truth.” Members are required to sever association with even their own family members and relatives who leave. The consequences of this harsh doctrinal policy are extreme, shattering family relationships and leaving the victims emotionally and spiritually devastated. Suicides or attempted suicides are not uncommon.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia: Excommunication within Catholicism is seen as medicinal. The goals are similar to the Amish. In, that the long term effects are to try to draw them back to the ‘path of righteousness.’

Read more here

Here’s another example of an appalling shunning incident within Catholicism that happened on May 18, 2010. I first read about it at butterfliesandwheels and was so disgusted at the way the nun had been treated by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. Then again, on reflection I shouldn’t really find it unsurprising. It has not got a very good record in its treatment of institutional children in the past. 170, 000 children and more went through the hands of the religious in Ireland in the past and there is now a Ryan Report to show the shoddy treatment of its handling of the most vulnerable of society.

PHOENIX, Arizona (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Bishop of Phoenix has announced that a Catholic nun and administrator of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix has automatically excommunicated herself by approving an abortion on a woman who was 11-weeks pregnant, and whose life hospital officials allege they were trying to save.

See: Nun Excommunicated Self by Approving Abortion – Catholic Online

It has since been rescinded. Incidentally, there was also another nun in Australia who suffered the same fate. The two nuns would have devoted their entire lives to religion and worked every hour God gave them for the good of Mother church. However, the church had/has such power over them, that it thought fit to wield it, at the drop of a hat, and reduce them to insignificant nonentities. Ironically, the Excommunicated Australian Nun Became A Saint in 2010. Pope Benedict canonised Mary MacKillop, making her Australia’s first native-born saint. She’s been dubbed the “Patron Saint of abuse victims.

Read the rest

Shunning is here to stay, and very active so it appears in one particular American school in Indiana. I came across a post on the 18th of February, 2013 again at butterfliesandwheels where a conservative talk show host “Janet Mefferd waded into the controversy about the Indiana high school where a group of students wanted to organise a separate prom that would specifically prevent gay and lesbian students from attending:”

In her post Ophelia Benson says:

I find that there’s a right I can have that I didn’t even know I could have. There’s a right to not see gay people. I did not ever know that. A conservative talk show host called Janet Mefferd says there is such a right. Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd this week waded into the …

“We don’t agree with it and it’s offensive to us,” said Diana Medley who is a special needs teacher, whom children go to with their problems. Her philosophy is that she “doesn’t believe anyone is born gay.” She continues “I believe that it was life circumstances and they chose to be that way; God created everyone equal,” said Medley. ”Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don’t agree with them, but I care about them. It’s the same thing with my special needs kids, I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason,” said Medley. With a mindset of a teacher like that at the school one can only wonder what hope have the gay teens. She is so utterly indoctrinated. Love the person, but not the sinner. Thankfully though, not all in the community think what they’re doing is right in having a separate prom. Yes, there’s a right ‘not to see gay people’, but it’s wrong to shun people for the wrong reasons. This is stomach churning stuff.

Continue reading »

I hold very strong views on shunning because of my past institutional upbringing and a whole young life of feeling shunned by the world. So I feel fit to talk about the negative consequences of this dastardly practice that is so common with religious. I know too of many religious people themselves who were on the receiving end of shunning when they decided in the past to leave religious life. They had given their lives to God and in one fell swoop because they started to disbelieve they were cast asunder and shunned for the rest of their lives. They had to face an alien world all on their own without support from the religious. Yet, they’d previously devoted their entire lives to religious life and gave up everything. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. People have been excommunicated in the Roman Catholic Church for helping with actions that were deemed wrong by the Vatican. There was also a recent case of an elderly priest, Father Bob, in Australia, who was cast aside and shunned by the church and asked to leave his dwellings because he spoke out on child sex abuse issues. I don’t want to conflate his mercifulness with that of those who are shunned for genuine wrongdoing, but at the end of the day the same religious practice is used in both case scenarios, and all boils down to the one thing. Shunning is shunning is shunning and should be a despised practice by those who despise all wrongful acts that the church is famous for indeed. One can’t deny one vile practice of the church whilst using the same vile practice for in another capacity. It’s utterly hypocritical.

On a wider sociological scale one has only to look at what shunning has done to religious people in Northern Ireland. The divided communities have thrived on hating one another for generations. Shunning can cause wars.

The religious from all persuasions have a lot to answer for the way that they shun children and adults alike. The religious who practice shunning should not be messing around with the delicate nature of human beings. They have no right to separate children and adults from their loved ones. The legacy of separating children from their parents and denying the former any knowledge of their familial backgrounds has specifically done irreversible damage to those who were sent into industrial school system in the past in Ireland. The nuns were more concerned about their own image that they denied children the love of their parent/s. There was one particular incident in Goldenbridge where twins were denied knowing who their family was because the nuns did not want to be disgraced. The head-honcho nun was a friend of two of aunts belonging to the twins, as both of them were Sisters of Mercy. The head-honcho denied the twins the right to know their mother because of shame attached to a sister of the aunts having had them out of wedlock. For fifty years she flatly refused to tell the twins anything about themselves, despite the constant pleading and suffering. It was only revealed when she was threatened with legal action.

Shunning Conclusion [Part V]

As I pointed out at the outset, my personal experiences vis a vis shunning harks back to my long childhood incarceration years at Goldenbridge. I know that I have to be extra mindful not to blame the world out there because of the tremendously damaging wrongdoing done by a society that was far too close-minded and ignorant to care about the impressive fragile minds of children. I soaked up the shunning. I soaked up the rejection. I soaked up the harshness of my surroundings, with not a moral compass to guide me along the way. I had no compass to steer me in the right direction, as do those who grow up in normal home-loving families mostly take for granted. I don’t know how to fix the distortions that were embedded in the brain at a time when the mind was like a sponge soaking and absorbing it. However, I do know that being cognisant of having the propensity for confirmation bias towards the world at large, I must intermittently stretch my elastic wristband to alert me to the predilection I have for negative thinking and steer the mind into a more positive direction. The onus is on me not to be a target for shunning. As a child I was helpless to turn it around, but now as an older adult I must become aware that I DO have the power to turn it around here’s been a lot of talk lately in the blogosphere corners I frequent regarding shunning. It has prompted me to write down a few thoughts on what shunning means to me personally as the very thought of the ‘shunning’ word absolutely sends shivers down my spine.

SHUN MAKE MY DAY kEYCHAIN

Wiki says: “Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture. Mental rejection is a more individual action, where a person subconsciously or willfully ignores an idea, or a set of information related to a particular viewpoint. Some groups are made up of people who shun the same ideas.”

Advertisements

#Savita Halappanavar Demonstration / Protest in Dublin October 17th 2012

H/t Published on Nov 17, 2012 by 

Part one of the large rally/march over the recent death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway. This rally was held in Dublin.

#Savita Halappanavar protest in Dublin (2) #NeverAgain by DAVID LYNCH

H/t Published on Nov 17, 2012 by 

Protesters on O’Connell street Dublin October 17th 2012.

I was looking at David Lynch’s video channel. He does a lot of Dublin Protest rallies that are worth viewing.

Sinead speaking at #Savita vigil in Merrion Square by DAVID LYNCH

Religious Indoctrination is Child Abuse

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/118

Religion and children – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lacanlune put the following questions to me at Twitter. I haven’t got around to thinking about them yet, as I was caught up with all the Shunning in next post.

@MarieTherese39 /contd: and instals only prohibition not promise. There must be a space for difference, for a subjective set of beliefs.

@MarieTherese39 /contd: to mediate their parents + their own omnipotence.Un-mediated it’s the ‘obscene superego’, denies subjectivity..contd

@MarieTherese39 It’s abuse when nonmediated but children do need a set of principles and ideals to offer structure and boundaries… contd..

Dawkins: Religious Indoctrination is Child Abuse

Religious Indoctrination is Child Abuse

“Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?”
Richard Dawkins

Religions always plan to indoctrinate children. Teaching religion to an adult is hard work because religions are absurd and often transparently so. In contrast teaching religion to children is easy. Children are susceptible and suggestible. It doesn’t sound like far-fetched nonsense to a child, children are credulous.

The religious don’t regard telling children about hellfire and damnation is indoctrinating them before they have attained the age of reason, which it clearly is, they see it as a good thing. Making children fear hellfire is meant to save their souls and set them on the only path to righteousness. Nobody would deliberately teach their children a tissue of lies knowing them to be lies. The reason to instil fear into a child when they are too young to see that the story is farcical is never that the person doing the teaching believes that the story is farcical, the motives are always pure but no matter, the effect is the same.

Abusive religious indoctrination of children takes places worldwide.Religious indoctrination of children takes places worldwide.
Children are primed to believe what they are told by figures in authority who seem to be looking after them. This wide-open credulity makes them prey to nonces, paedophiles who make up nonsensical stories to get children to come with them. It also makes them prey to something even more sinister with an even greater capacity to screw with them: religion.

Religious Indoctrination is Child Abuse

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/118

Dawkins: Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse

Article in “The Dubliner” and Reply re “Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse”

Dawkins stated that:

“….The Roman Catholic Church is one of the forces for evil in the world, mainly because of the powerful influence it has over the minds of children. The Catholic Church has developed, over the centuries, brilliant techniques in brain washing children; even intelligent people who have had a proper, full cradle-Catholic upbringing find it hard to shake it off when they reach adulthood. Obviously many of them do – and congratulations to them for it – but even some really quite intelligent people fail to shake it off, powerful evidence of the skill in brainwashing that the Catholic Church exercises. It’s far more skilled than, for instance, the Anglican Church, mere amateurs in the game.

“The Catholic Church also has an extraordinarily retrogressive stance on everything to do with reproduction. Any sort of new technology which makes life easier for women without causing any suffering is likely to be opposed by the Catholic Church. Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.

” I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn’t Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that’s a fairly common experience.

 “I can’t speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild – a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell – being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that – is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. …….

One of his critics Mike Gene replied:

I think it clear that this is raw anti-religious bigotry. We can ignore the letter from “a woman in America” as a) we have no idea whether her account is valid and b) even if valid, it is an anecdote. Since Dawkins is a drum-banger for science, surely he would recognize science would need much more than a vague anecdote to support this contention.

So let’s think through on Dawkins? logic. First, where is the science? What scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where is the evidence of this “grievous mental harm” in bringing up the child Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?!

Secondly, it is ironic that Dawkins has the science backwards. There are plenty of studies to show that sexual molestation of a child can have long term, negative effects. Dismissing it as “a bit of fondling” and being “mental damage anyway” is insulting to the many victims of child molestation. And there are plenty of studies that also show that religious belief and convictions, if held seriously, provide a net positive benefit in terms of psychological and physical health. In other words, contrary to the views of Dawkins, being raised a Catholic is not worse than being sexually abused.

But let’s follow through with this example of Dawkins Think. As it stands, it is illegal to sexually molest a child. And, of course, it is not illegal to raise your child as a Catholic. But if it is really more harmful to raise your child as a Catholic than to sexually molest your child, as Dawkins believes, society needs to adjust its laws. According to Dawkins’ logic, we should a) either make it illegal to raise your child as a Catholic, as it is worse than pedophilia, or b) legalize pedophilia, since it is not as bad as the legal activity of teaching a child about Hell and Catholicism. Which option would Dawkins choose? It’s his logic, thus his choice to clarify.

Consider a simple analogy. The house next to your house goes up for sale. Two families are interested in buy it. The first family is a devout Catholic family. The father is hard working and has broken no laws. But he has taught his kids to believe in Catholic doctrine, including belief in Hell. The second family is not religious. The father is also hard working, but he also sexually molests his kids. In Dawkins World, you hope the child molester moves in next door, as he is not as bad as the Catholic man.”

It Should be Illegal for Parents to Indoctrinate Their Children – Petition Signed by Dawkins

In December 2006, Dawkins signed a Petition that upset some of his most devoted followers – so much so that he quickly withdrew his signature and claimed he had “misunderstood” same. In contrast he has never withdrawn his claim that Catholicism is worse than child abuse. While the latter claim worried some of his followers, it was directly entirely at the Catholic Church and therefore a lot more palatable to anti-clerics).

Martin Wagner of “The Atheist Experience” Blog *** wrote in an article called “Has Dawkins Totally Jumped the Shark“:

“The petition, authored by one Jamie Wallis using a service on the No 10 Downing Street website that allows users to write their own petitions and gather signatures right there for the PM’s consideration, reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16. In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

“Whoa.

“Let’s run through this.

“The first and most obvious thing that comes to mind is that what the petition asks is something that in America is unequivocally unconstitutional: government intrusion in private religious practice. Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, has gone into outrage overload at this whole thing, declaring that “as far as I’m concerned, this pretty much removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people.” He goes on to a laundry list of entirely valid criticisms.

This proposal is every bit as noxious and totalitarian as a proposal from Christian reconstructionists that those who teach their children about witchcraft or atheism should be thrown in jail would be. Just imagine what you would have to do to actually enforce such a law. No one could take their children to church, which means you’d have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed. The only way to enforce such a law would be to create a society that would make Orwell’s 1984 seem optimistic by comparison.

“In case the “thrown in jail” part sounds a little hyperbolic to you, recall that the petition itself uses the word “illegal,” and the general idea is that if someone does something illegal, then they’ve earned at the very least a citation and at worst imprisonment. Does Dawkins really want people to go to jail for taking their kids to Sunday School? Has he really gone that far over the top?” [End of Quotation]

*** The Blog motto seems to be “We feed on the blood of the ignorant!” – but they may not be referring to Dawkins!

My Comment: Dawkins withdrew his signature, claiming that he had misunderstood the Petition, believing it only referred to religious schools. The Petition does not mention schools at all and moreover is perfectly in line with Dawkins claim that raising your child as a Catholic is a form of child abuse.

Hitler was not an Atheist; He was a Catholic – as per Richard Dawkins

On  22 September 2010 the UK Guardian reported that “Richard Dawkins has contacted the Guardian to strongly deny that he compared Roman Catholics to Nazis, rather he said that Hitler was a Roman Catholic.” The Guardian then gave a detailed account of his speech that included the following:

“The unfortunate little fact that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth has been the subject of a widely observed moratorium. I’ve respected it myself, hitherto. But after the pope’s outrageous speech in Edinburgh, blaming atheism for Adolf Hitler, one can’t help feeling the gloves are off ………..

“Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Or at least he was as much a Roman Catholic as the 5 million so-called Roman Catholics in this country today. For Hitler never renounced his baptismal Catholicism, which was doubtless the criterion for counting the 5 million alleged British Catholics today. You cannot have it both ways. Either you have 5 million British Catholics, in which case you have to have Hitler, too. Or Hitler was not a Catholic, in which case you have to give us an honest figure for the number of genuine Catholics in Britain today – the number who really believe Jesus turns himself into a wafer, as the former Professor Ratzinger presumably does.

“In any case, Hitler certainly was not an atheist. In 1933 he claimed to have “stamped atheism out”, having banned most of Germany’s atheist organisations, including the German Freethinkers League whose building was then turned into an information bureau for church affairs. …

“Even if Hitler had been an atheist – as Joseph Stalin more surely was – how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin’s non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns. Any more than their sporting of a moustache – along with Francisco Franco and Saddam Hussein. There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness.

Unless, that is, you are steeped in the vile obscenity at the heart of Catholic theology. I refer (and I am indebted to Paula Kirby for the point) to the doctrine of original sin. These people believe – and they teach this to tiny children, at the same time as they teach them the terrifying falsehood of hell – that every baby is “born in sin”. That would be Adam’s sin, by the way: Adam who, as they themselves now admit, never existed.

Original sin means that, from the moment we are born, we are wicked, corrupt, damned. Unless we believe in their God. Or unless we fall for the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell. That, ladies and gentleman, is the disgusting theory that leads them to presume that it was godlessness that made Hitler and Stalin the monsters that they were. We are all monsters unless redeemed by Jesus. What a vile, depraved, inhuman theory to base your life on.

Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity. ………..”

Extracts from http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002161.html (a a “Hitler’s Table Talk”) regarding Christianity

The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953,contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, “Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944“, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday: 
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday: 
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night: 
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday: 
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight: 
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday: 
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner: 
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday: 
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)

Hitler was in fact, a Social Darwinist who believed in an impersonal Providence which gives victory to the strong by using a process of natural selection to ensure the survival of the fittest. (He objected to Christianity because he saw it as “a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature ….. the systematic cultivation of the human failure”.) In addition Hitler – like Dawkins – did not believe in Original Sin – which the Catholic Church regards as a radical weakness in human nature by means of which we have a “natural” tendency to do evil rather than good. 

When I first saw this mentioned at The Jewish Atheist (via The Uncredible Hallq) I thought Dawkins was being misquoted or quoted out of context. Unfortunately, not so! You know what point Dawkins was trying to make. I know what point Dawkins was trying to make. Nevertheless, to claim that sexual abuse is worse than Catholic teachings is incredibly misguided and flat out insensitive to victims of pedophilia.

Richard Dawkins and David Quinn: Debate on Tubridy Show – 9 October 2006

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/2503/

http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/001714.html

http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002125.html

http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002161.html

RICHARD DAWKINS WORLD (or “Dawkins and Child Abuse”)

“Richard Dawkins in Dublin”: Discussion on Politics.ie website in September 2009

“Ratzinger is an Enemy of Humanity and Hitler was a Catholic”, Richard Dawkins, The Guardian (UK) – 22 Sept 10

http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002161.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/22/ratzinger-enemy-humanity

“Dawkins discovers he can’t arrest the Pope”. 

Hell and Richard Dawkins

Teaching a child about hell is a very frightening thing, as survivors of Goldenbridge and other Industrial ‘Schools’ know only too well. They were reminded every day of their lives that they would be threatened with the flames of hell if they were deemed out of order by the nuns. I also think that child sexual abuse is very damaging to children. Scars remain with them for the rest of their lives. In the finality, both threats of hell and child abuse are severely damaging, and have left children from Industrial ‘Schools’ with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPSD).

Dawkins: Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse

Back in October of 2002, Richard Dawkins wrote an essay for The Dubliner magazine entitled, “The God Shaped Hole”. In this essay, Dawkins compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues that Catholicism is worse: ”Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn’t Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that’s a fairly common experience.” I can’t speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild – a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell – being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that – is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse.” 

I got into a discussion with a young person on twitter. Not a follower, thank goodness. I was trying to bring the HELL perspective mostly into the conversation, without saying that it was more evil than child abuse. I think it went on deaf ears. I think it is just a black and white situation with a lot of people who’ve probably never had the threat of hell thrown at them every single day of their young lives in institutional settings. I can only make that summation. I don’t know exactly. I’ve seen the black and white term mentioned in critical thinking manuals. I think they may not be looking at the ‘full breath’ [another critical terminology] of Richard Dawkins meaning of same. I don’t want to diminish sex abuse, as it is not my place to make judgements on others who have been sexually abused, I know noting about at all.

Ophelia Benson gives both the Hell and sexual abuse of children their individual place.

…[H]ere’s the thing. I agree with people who are outraged by the “worse than a child being sexually abused” part, but I agree with Dawkins that the badness of teaching children that hell is real is terrible and that that gets neglected.

I think this means I’ve irritated everyone. So it goes.

I think it’s a big mistake, and especially so for Dawkins and at this stage of the game, to compare it with anything else, and to minimize child sexual abuse. (TGD came out before the Ryan Report. I would guess Dawkins has read the Ryan Report. I think it was front and center at the time of the protests against the pope’s visit. If he has, it seems odd that he’s still arguing that priestly child sexual abuse isn’t always a big deal.

I think OB has a very good point there when she points out that the TGD came out before the Ryan Report. The timing of both was not good at all. They clashed dreadfully with each other. I also do not think that RD would have said what he did to The Dubliner, post the Ryan Report. It would have been out of place. However, I sincerely empathise with his condemnation on the ‘flames of hell’ ideology preached to little children and the untold damage arising from same. The Ryan Report shocked even the politicians. I know for a fact that survivors of child institutional abuse were getting untold grief for years from people who had an agenda with the church. It angered me, and still does to this very day that survivors of child institutional abuse were passed over and neglected by a large contingent in an unnamed ‘community where they thought they would be listened to and welcomed with open arms. However that’s another issue.

OB continues down further…

He may be right that for some children it really isn’t, but it’s a very dubious thing to argue, especially when the church is still trying to brush it under the carpet.) I think he should just separate the two, and then leave the other one strictly alone. Focus on hell, and leave the child abuse issue alone; that’s my advice.

Yeah, that is what I was trying to do at Twitter, just focus on the HELL element. Instead, I found that I was being linked to those who thought that I came from the camp that thought child sexual abuse was of a lesser evil than HELL.

I’ve been standing on metaphorical soap-boxes for years decrying the damage that both child sexual abuse and indoctrination of Roman Catholicism has done to children. I lost out on a loving relationship with relatives who meant the world to me because I sided with the opposition.

Read the rest: In which I annoy everyone all at once

I wasn’t going to mention the name out of politeness. However, now that I’ve been blocked, I see no reason to hold forth to my otherwise polite post demeanour. See following tweet from one Bailey in Ohio, USA.

Finally had to block someone who was screaming at me for saying Dawkins/Harris’ statements about #rape & #religion were disgusting.

I never said such a thing, let alone use/scream the ‘disgusting’ word. I never brought Dawkins/Harris names into the equation at all.

Ad hominem: Latin for “to the man.” An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labelling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Blocking a person can be a form of an attack on a person, instead of trying to understand ‘the breath’ of the argument.

All this critical thinking stuff is rubbing up the wrong way with a lot of people. Am getting into trouble a lot lately.

Bailey says further down:

11mBaileyBailey ‏@the_author_

If you want to try to defend that shit, please rethink your stance and don’t bother taking to me. #Dawkins #Harris

So Bailey has come to the conclusion that I’m defending the alleged story that child sex abuse is not as bad as hell. The only comparison I made was that both caused CPTSD. Nothing else.

I’ve been blocked at Twitter once already for giving my long-winded opinions on the pinkification of girls. I’m not against pink at all. I love the colour pink and spent part of the summer taking photos of gorgeous pink roses in a pink garden that I was wild about. I was picked up wrongly there. I’ll have to study English much better if I’m to truly understand and relate to my audience. I’m not very good at sussing out the audience at all. Oops, I feel a sense of cognitive dissonance coming on. Beware! Nonetheless, I’m not into blocking people. I don’t like to use ‘power’ in that shoddy way. I’m all for free speech.

Of course I was teasing out the damage that Hell did to children in the past at twitter with Bailey and the psychosocial sequelae. Blimey, I’m now in need of a Bailey’s after my disconcerted manner not to try to offend anybody.

I’ve just looked at the twitter followers of Bailey and it appears that she follows a plethora of followers whose names I’d be most familiar. Makes me sad. Perhaps I should have checked out who I was interacting with before embarking on what would be considered by others a sheer rant.

2 comments:

Badger3k said…
Well. it’s nice to see that others can jump to conclusions as well as theists. He did explain it in his Point of Inquiry interview – I’d give it a listen if I were you (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/) (since this is news, I assume you haven’t heard it yet). Of course, you could be saying “sigh” because he is giving more fodder for the extremists to quote-mine (and apparently other atheists as well), but then, anything he says will be fodder for the clueless. 6:01 AM
es said…
Dawkins comments further on this remark in his new book, The God Delusion. He says it was an “off the cuff remark” made in “the heat of the moment” but for a number of reasons defends himself. He is not trivializing the sexual abuse of children so much as pointing out how similarly abusive the religious indoctrination is. And perhaps the religious indoctrination and mental torture it often involves (in terms of teaching children they will burn in hell if they don’t believe a certain doctrine) is worse. Why? Because we all agree that sexual abuse is wrong and evil. But most of the people in your family and of course everyone in your church thinks that teaching you what I can only call EVIL religious doctrines is just fine and dandy. And that YOU are wrong to protest or reject it. So which is harder to recover from, ultimately?The Uncredible HallqTweets to be read in reverse.

Ah, this what was said by M Francois-Cerrah

Tonight, Dawkins argued that teaching a child about hell is worse than a child being sexually abused,which he said ‘she might feel was yucky’

About 1/3rd of the audience agreed w/Dawkins that teaching a child about hell is worse than he/she being sexually abused #oxfordunion

@MFrancoisCerrah

M Francois-Cerrah

There was a little clarification on “yucky” in a subsequent tweet:

@stillicides I pretty much expressed that sentiment-esp when he spoke of ‘mild’ touching which ‘she might find yucky’#arghhh

@MFrancoisCerrah

M Francois-Cerrah”

Tweets

@the_author_ Can’t make any judgement on what Dawkins/Harris said, as I haven’t read what was allegedly said. Am responding to tweets per se.

 View conversation

@the_author_ Exactly, because if you did, you would probably have a better inkling of the worldview I hold regarding untold damage caused by the usage of Hell and Damnation in my childhood.

@the_author_ Yeah, so psychological that it can be on a par with child sex abuse when it comes to clinical CPTSD manifestation outcomes. I don’t want to demean child abuse.

@the_author_ Gosh, tell that to the millions upon millions of Irish people, who have nowhere to escape from religion. The Vatican rules Ireland.

@the_author_I come from a background that wreaked havoc on wee mites, whose whole lives were destroyed by being told they would go to hell.

@the_author_ The affects of being told ‘you’ll burn in the flames of hell’ stay with one forever, and cause Complex PTSD, as does child abuse.

@the_author_ Granted, it’s just that I was specifically replying to tweet re ‘choice’ as opposed to argument, simply because you mentioned same.

@the_author_ Well, despite coming from same RRC camp, we’re obviously also coming from opposing social/generation/educational backgrounds?

@the_author_ Bailey – Moving away from religion is not as easy as it sounds, when you live in a country that eats, sleeps, thinks RC catholicism. Period.

@the_author_ @socialutionsorg “Religion is a choice,” R U 4 real? RCC forces religion on new-born babies from baptism onwards. Brainwashed?

Tonight,Dawkins argued that teaching a child about hell is worse than a child being sexually abused,which he said ‘she might feel was yucky’

 Retweeted by Marie T O’Loughlin

Expand

@LFBarfe @MFrancoisCerrah You’d shake your head in disbelief if u knew the fear that damnation of hell caused 2 industrial school survivors.

@MFrancoisCerrah @LFBarfe Survivors of Industrial ‘Schools’ have never recovered from fears of burning in hell reminders that was instilled in them as child inmates.

@PenguinGalaxy @MFrancoisCerrah Children in the past were told they’d go to hell and burn in the flames. They grasped no other concept of hell, but the real burning flames.

@LFBarfe @MFrancoisCerrah Children in the past, from my perspective, were told they’d burn in flames of hell for all eternity. Not an idiot!

@LFBarfe @MFrancoisCerrah Teaching a child about hell, as I’ve experienced was rather more than a concept It was meant to be taken as real.

Critical Thinking revisited: http://bit.ly/UD03Of 

 View media

Tweets

@leScoob There are SO many valid comparisons that could have been made and that would have been relevant or worth saying.

If you want to try to defend that shit, please rethink your stance and don’t bother taking to me. #Dawkins #Harris

Also, Dawkins saying raping a child is bad b/c it might “make her feel yucky” is ludicrously demeaning to survivors of abuse.

I’m not saying religion never causes harm, but that their statements about rape being the lesser of 2 evils are sickening.

Finally had to block someone who was screaming at me for saying Dawkins/Harris’ statements about #rape & #religion were disgusting.

@MarieTherese39 Saying that what Dawkins/Harris said is wrong doesn’t detract from the harm religions do cause.

@MarieTherese39 There are plenty of Irish atheist groups out there, as well as Irish expats, working against that.

@MarieTherese39 I would never dispute that religious abuse can cause horrendous psychological trauma.

@MarieTherese39 I don’t know anything about your background, but if you think religion is worse than child rape, we are in opposition, yes.

@socialutionsorg Ha, thanks. It just seems like a no-brainer to me. Religion is a choice, rape is a crime. I know which I dislike more.

@the_author_ @socialutionsorg “Religion is a choice,” R U 4 real? RCC forces religion on new-born babies from baptism onwards. Brainwashed?

@MarieTherese39 Yeah, and once people grow up and move out, they can move away from it. Never said it was always a choice/a good choice.

@the_author_ Bailey – Moving away from religion is not as easy as it sounds, when you live in a country that eats, sleeps and thinks RC Catholicism. Period.

@MarieTherese39 It wasn’t a valid comparison, and it’s not helpful dialogue in terms of helping people move away from religious belief.

11:40 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

@socialutionsorg Ha, thanks. It just seems like a no-brainer to me. Religion is a choice, rape is a crime. I know which I dislike more.

@the_author_ @socialutionsorg “Religion is a choice,” R U 4 real? RCC forces religion on new-born babies from baptism onwards. Brainwashed?

@MarieTherese39 Yeah, and once people grow up and move out, they can move away from it. Never said it was always a choice/a good choice.

@the_author_ Bailey – Moving away from religion is not as easy as it sounds, when you live in a country that eats, sleeps and thinks RC Catholicism. Period

@MarieTherese39 Religion is not a good force in the world, I’m not arguing that. What I am arguing is that what Dawkins/Harris said was sick

11:39 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

@the_author_ Granted, it’s just that I was specifically replying to tweet re ‘choice’ as opposed to argument, simply because you mentioned same.

@socialutionsorg Ha, thanks. It just seems like a no-brainer to me. Religion is a choice, rape is a crime. I know which I dislike more.

@the_author_ @socialutionsorg “Religion is a choice,” R U 4 real? RCC forces religion on new-born babies from baptism onwards. Brainwashed?

@MarieTherese39 Yeah, and once people grow up and move out, they can move away from it. Never said it was always a choice/a good choice.

@the_author_ Bailey – Moving away from religion is not as easy as it sounds, when you live in a country that eats, sleeps and thinks RC Catholicism. Period

@MarieTherese39 But it can be done. You can’t be un-raped, and you can’t un-rape someone. Rape is a crime. Religion isn’t.

11:38 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

@the_author_ The affects of being told ‘you’ll burn in the flames of hell’ stay with one forever, and cause Complex PTSD, as does child abuse.

About 1/3rd of the audience agreed w/Dawkins that teaching a child about hell is worse than he/she being sexually abused #oxfordunion

@MFrancoisCerrah So Dawkins/Harris think religion is a greater evil than rape? I’m an atheist, but that’s sick. These men don’t speak for me

@socialutionsorg Ha, thanks. It just seems like a no-brainer to me. Religion is a choice, rape is a crime. I know which I dislike more.

@the_author_ @socialutionsorg “Religion is a choice,” R U 4 real? RCC forces religion on new-born babies from baptism onwards. Brainwashed?

@MarieTherese39 And I went to a Catholic school, so I’m very familiar with how religions influence kids-didn’t stop me from leaving religion

11:21 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

@the_author_ Well, despite coming from same RRC camp, we’re obviously also coming from opposing social/generation/educational backgrounds?

@MarieTherese39 I don’t know anything about your background, but if you think religion is worse than child rape, we are in opposition, yes.

@the_author_ Exactly, because if you did you would probably have better inkling of worldview I hold regarding untold damage caused by Hell and Damnation terms thrown at one every single day as a child.

About 1/3rd of the audience agreed w/Dawkins that teaching a child about hell is worse than he/she being sexually abused #oxfordunion

@MFrancoisCerrah So Dawkins/Harris think religion is a greater evil than rape? I’m an atheist, but that’s sick. These men don’t speak for me

@socialutionsorg Ha, thanks. It just seems like a no-brainer to me. Religion is a choice, rape is a crime. I know which I dislike more.

@the_author_ @socialutionsorg “Religion is a choice,” R U 4 real? RCC forces religion on new-born babies from baptism onwards. Brainwashed?

@MarieTherese39 Rape, however, is a violent crime. Teaching kids religion isn’t great for their minds. But it’s in NO WAY comparable to rape

11:20 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

About 1/3rd of the audience agreed w/Dawkins that teaching a child about hell is worse than he/she being sexually abused #oxfordunion

@MFrancoisCerrah So Dawkins/Harris think religion is a greater evil than rape? I’m an atheist, but that’s sick. These men don’t speak for me

@socialutionsorg Ha, thanks. It just seems like a no-brainer to me. Religion is a choice, rape is a crime. I know which I dislike more.

@the_author_ @socialutionsorg “Religion is a choice,” R U 4 real? RCC forces religion on new-born babies from baptism onwards. Brainwashed?

@MarieTherese39 Yeah, and once people grow up and move out, they can move away from it. Never said it was always a choice/a good choice.

11:20 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

@the_author_ Bailey – Moving away from religion is not as easy as it sounds, when you live in a country that eats; sleeps; thinks RC Catholicism. Period.

@MarieTherese39 But it can be done. You can’t be un-raped, and you can’t un-rape someone. Rape is a crime. Religion isn’t.

@MarieTherese39 Religion is not a good force in the world, I’m not arguing that. What I am arguing is that what Dawkins/Harris said was sick

@MarieTherese39 It wasn’t a valid comparison, and it’s not helpful dialogue in terms of helping people move away from religious belief.

@the_author_ Granted, it’s just that I was specifically replying to tweet re ‘choice’ as opposed to argument, simply because you mentioned same.

I’ve campaigned for years against institutional child abuse. A commission to inquire into institutional child abuse (inclusive of sexual abuse] was set up in Ireland in 2002. The Ryan Report was the outcome. I’ve been supportive of the Ferns, Murphy Report into clerical child sex abuse. Most of my twitter followers have child sexual abuse concerns to the fore. A lot of them have first hand knowledge of child sex abuse.
It’s your account, and you’re entitled to do as you wish.

Finally had to block someone who was screaming at me for saying Dawkins/Harris’ statements about #rape & #religion were disgusting.

12:49 PM – 24 Nov 12 ·

@the_author_ Good! They are disgusting!

So Becky Escalator and Julian Francisco have cheered on the accuser @BeckyEscalator‘s profile reads “I mostly follow blogs, news and organizations and tweet about random things.”
Well for your information BE, I follow blogs and interact with people all the time who have child sex abuse issues to the fore. I would not have this journal if it were not for child abuse issues of the past. I was told I was ‘disgusting’ throughout my young life so you are telling me nothing new. Too bad you did not do your homework before you decided to tell a blocked twitterer that they were ‘disgusting’. Or, were you just randomly making a comment?

Penelope Grace @callistacat’s profile advocates being “Pro-being nice to my fellow three-dimensional beings.” I’m all for one ‘dimensional’ niceness, especially when it concerns the truth. It would have been so ‘nice’ if you’d actually read the tweets of the person who was blocked before deciding to retweet same.

24 Nov

Also, Dawkins saying raping a child is bad b/c it might “make her feel yucky” is ludicrously demeaning to survivors of abuse.

 Retweeted by julian francisco

Expand

I’m not saying religion never causes harm, but that their statements about rape being the lesser of 2 evils are sickening.

Retweeted by julian francisco

Expand

Finally had to block someone who was screaming at me for saying Dawkins/Harris’ statements about #rape & #religion were disgusting.

 Retweeted by julian francisco
  • Becky EscalatorPenelope Gracejulian franciscoDeimusHenry Garcia III
12:49 PM – 24 Nov 12 ·

@canislatrans make some issues much worse but in and of themselves they don’t cause trauma like sexual assault.

Have you any evidence to back up that ‘in and of themselves’ they don’t cause trauma? I beg to differ very much having lived in a religious environment where ‘flames of hell’ threats were constantly thrown at children and caused immense psychological damage. The result being that the slow drip-fed trauma suffered over decades, was told to the Irish commission to inquire into child institutional abuse.

@canislatrans compliance coerced through threats of punishment aren’t all that abusive even at their worse. They’re manipulative and can…

Codswallop. You talk out of the side of one of your avatar images.

Tonight Dawkins argued that teaching a child about hell is worse than a child being sexually abused, which he said ‘she might feel was yucky’

@MFrancoisCerrah That is so atrocious I need to see evidence he said that. Even though it would not totally surprise me.

@gregladen @MFrancoisCerrah I don’t think it’s completely batty. Hell is TERRIFYING. That’s his real point.

Hear! Hear!

@OpheliaBenson Some child abusers use terror. Others rape, others beat. Discussing which is “worse” pointless. @gregladen@MFrancoisCerrah

@canislatrans But we’re not talking about abuse. We’re talking about telling a kid about hell. While hell is def worse than prison, the

Blimey, is he for real.

11:20 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

Tonight,Dawkins argued that teaching a child about hell is worse than a child being sexually abused,which he said ‘she might feel was yucky’

@MFrancoisCerrah That is so atrocious I need to see evidence he said that. Even though it would not totally surprise me.

@gregladen @MFrancoisCerrah I don’t think it’s completely batty. Hell is TERRIFYING. That’s his real point.

@OpheliaBenson @gregladen @MFrancoisCerrah minors is definitely something worth talking about. But it doesn’t scar like sexual abuse.

Yes, it does. For some.

11:18 AM – 24 Nov 12 · Details

@JlnFrancisco @gregladen @MFrancoisCerrah Yes it does, for some. But I agree on the basic: both suck, & it’s pointless to compare.

@the_author_’s account is protected.

@the_author_ Here! Here!

 Hide conversation

20:24:55 — 2 hours ago
   
20:24:28 — 2 hours ago
   
20:24:12 — 2 hours ago

Foundation for Critical Thinking for children [Part 1-5]

2. Three Kinds of Thinkers by CriticalThinkingOrg

3. Standards for Thinking by CriticalThinkingOrg

4. Parts of Thinking by CriticalThinkingOrg

5. Intellectual Virtues by CriticalThinkingOrg

About Foundation for Critical Thinking

Discourse on critical thinking for teachers and educators in all grade levels and in all societies. This channel contains video footage, interviews and clips from the Foundation for Critical Thinking on topics ranging from Critical Thinking and Ed…

I’ll have to learn to crawl before taking bigger steps. So will explore the concept and meaning of Critical Thinking first by viewing the above videos.

Cognitive dissonance

Research

Festinger first developed this theory in the 1950s to explain how members of a cult who were persuaded by their leader, a certain Mrs Keech, that the earth was going to be destroyed on 21st December and that they alone were going to be rescued by aliens, actually increased their commitment to the cult when this did not happen (Festinger himself had infiltrated the cult, and would have been very surprised to meet little green men). The dissonance of the thought of being so stupid was so great that instead they revised their beliefs to meet with obvious facts: that the aliens had, through their concern for the cult, saved the world instead.

In a more mundane experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith got students to lie about a boring task. Those who were paid $1 for the task felt uncomfortable lying.

Description

This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

  • The importance of the subject to us.
  • How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
  • Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

Cognitive Dissonance

I’ve heard the CD phrase being employed for many years in Comments and Notes at B&W. See: following examples. It’s a learning curve trying to understand the technicalities behind CD. It’s a phrase of such a strong and emotional nature.

Wall? What wall? Do you see a wall? – Butterflies and Wheels 4 Aug 2010

Walker’s crowning achievement | Butterflies and Wheels 17 Sep 2012

Anatomy of a bully is it | Butterflies and Wheels 10 Sep 2012 –  

Leeds Skeptics in the Pub reach out to women | Butterflies and Wheels 7 Jul 2012 –