Janet Heimlich's Blog

A legislative committee in Idaho is about to consider a bill that would endanger the lives of countless children in that state. Senate Bill 1182, filed by Sen. Dan Johnson, aims to change the laws that provide religious exemptions to parents who deny their children needed medical care.

Already, more children die of “faith healing” medical neglect in Idaho than in any other state, largely due to the existence of the Followers of Christ church whose members insist that going to a doctor or hospital is the work of the devil. But another culprit is the Idaho legislature which has repeatedly refused to repeal the exemptions.

On Monday, for the first time, a committee will hold hearings on a bill that addresses this issue. But with the introduction of SB1182, Idaho lawmakers seem determined to only increase the number of children who, through religious medical neglect, will suffer pain, severe illness, permanent disability, and death.

One of the biggest problems is that SB1182 only addresses religious exemptions in the civil code. It does nothing to allow prosecutors to file charges against medically neglectful parents who “treat” their children only with prayer. And SB1182 contains loopholes that could greatly increase the number of parents who neglect their children without penalty. For example, the bill exempts parents if the children themselves choose not to receive medical care.

How easy would it be for a parent who refuses a child insulin for diabetes, and then, after the child goes into a diabetic coma and dies, to claim that the child refused the insulin? Besides, making children responsible for deciding their own medical treatments in pro-faith healing communities and households is nothing less than abusive. In these extreme groups, children are raised since birth to believe that prayer is the only sure way to find healing, while receiving an aspirin will send you on a fast track to hell. Offering a child who’s been indoctrinated with these beliefs and practices the choice of whether to be taken to a strange hospital or stick with prayer is exploitive and self-serving since the adults know the child will choose in their favor.

The other dangerous loophole provides a parent the ability to say he or she had no idea that a child was in distress. The bill narrowly defines medical neglect in instances when a parent is “treating” a child with prayer and “failure to receive medical treatment is likely to result in serious permanent injury or death.” (I suppose for Idaho lawmakers, “injury” or even “permanent injury” isn’t enough to warrant Child Protective Services to be called.)

And so parents, particularly those who live in insulated, extremist groups, could claim that they had no idea a child was at risk for “serious permanent injury” or death, just as parents in other states have claimed at trial. (The bill would be significantly improved if it stated that such a condition would have to meet a standard of reasonableness. So, for example, it could state that a child would be considered neglected “if a reasonable person would determine that the failure to receive medical treatment is likely to result in serious permanent injury or death.”)

A particularly terrifying change in the law consists of two words: in part. Currently, only parents who rely on faith healing as the only means of “treatment” are immune from, say, being investigated by CPS. But SB1182 expands this to also include parents who rely on prayer only “in part.” With these two words, the bill aims to allow potentially thousands of parents off the hook for harming their children. In essence, parents who at any time while their child is battling an illness say a quick prayer would not be held accountable if they denied that child medical care, even if the child died as a result.

Idaho, why make an already deadly situation worse?

To write to Idaho legislators and tell them what you think of SB1182, please visit Protect Idaho Kids.

Child advocates long been embroiled in a fight to save the health and lives of sick and injured children who had the misfortune of being been born into extreme “faith healing” religious groups. As of late, many of us have focused on Idaho. Not because it’s the only state that doesn’t penalize parents who deny their children life-saving medical care, but because it has a large (and apparently powerful) religious group that’s killing an average of 2 children a year through religious medical neglect.

While most Idahoans seem to support changing the laws so that all parents are required to give their sick, injured, and dying kids medical care, there are those who hate the idea. It’s hard to say why. These opponents don’t say much about why it’s okay to let a child suffer and die from such medically treatable conditions as diabetes, infection, and cancer. Instead, they express their caps-button-locked outrage about another issue: abortion.

As an example, on February 4, a woman named Racheal Ankeny from Nampa, Idaho, wrote this letter to the editor in response to one I wrote advocating for all children to receive necessary medical care:

It would be interesting to know how many of those same people who support the removal of the religious exemption that allows parents to not choose medical treatment for their children also buttress the right to abortion. Only a twisted power-monger would want the right to kill her own baby or for other women to kill their own babies, but not let parents opt out of medical care. Hmmm, maybe those of you who find yourselves in this camp should just invoke your Supreme Court-given right to death and leave other people’s children alone!

Pro-lifers like Ms. Ankeny seem pleased to have flashed upon what they see as hypocrisy among child advocates like myself. That is, they think it’s contradictory to support a woman’s right to choose and a child’s right to life. Putting aside the false assumption that every advocate who supports repealing these exemptions is also pro-choice, I’m thrilled that Ms. Ankeny and other pro-lifers seem to be on the verge of concluding that all life is valuable.

I mean, if pro-lifers think it’s hypocritical to devalue the life of a fetus and, simultaneously, value the life of the born, then couldn’t they also see that it’s hypocritical to oppose abortion and support the killing of children who have exited the womb? Therefore, is it possible for them to support both the lives of the unborn and the born? This point is not lost on Sen. Richard Briggs of Tennessee who is close to seeing his bill to repeal that state’s exemptions pass. As he noted about opponents:

They were arguing both on religious and parental rights, that even if a child dies, the parent has a right to do what they want to do. I told them they had just made a great case for abortion, because the right to life does not stop at birth. The right to life is for the entire life. Part of your parental rights, duties and responsibility includes obtaining medical care when your child needs it.

Think of the opportunity here. If pro-lifers in Idaho could expand their thinking to also want to protect the lives of the born, it could mean a surge of support for vulnerable kids and give them a chance to avoid ongoing pain, longterm illness, disability, and death. Unfortunately, though, that doesn’t seem to be happening in Idaho. Why? Because these folks are not principally led by ethics—or reason for that matter. They are led by religion. Or what they believe religion is.

For religious conservatives to recognize the value of all life, they would have to be convinced that their religion supports it. And so I ask you…does anyone know of a scriptural passage of any religion that supports the life of a child? If you do, please provide it below. I will compile a list of anything that has been published in a religious text that speaks to the need to preserve the lives of the born.

Maybe then religious conservatives will see that they can advocate for all life.

I have witnessed, and been the target of, a lot of anger these past few weeks.

One woman publicly and repeatedly attacked me because she disagreed with choices I’d made in trying to protect children from harm.

I listened to a man who, with eyes wide, talked about how he grew up in a family that refused him and his siblings medical care, even for broken bones.

An attorney sent me a vitriolic email punctuated with profanity, accusing me of opportunism.

One of the most grounded human beings I know became so overwhelmed with anger he had to stop communicating with me for a while.

All of these individuals I know to be survivors of child maltreatment. I also know that I’m scared by anger, because of my upbringing. When I was young, my father would get intensely angry. During those times, I felt unsafe because I had no escape.

Yet I, myself, was not permitted to feel anger. When my father and I argued and my voice would rise, he would say, “Whoever gets angry is in the wrong.”

Anger is a frequent companion of survivors of child abuse and neglect, one that might disappear for days, or even weeks, only to quickly return with no warning. I know people who go to great lengths to try to nullify their anger, as if they can buy it a one-way ticket and send it somewhere far away. Others accept that anger will pay them a visit from time to time and work on observing those triggered feelings and rendering them powerless.

But however we go about trying to deal with our anger, I can say most assuredly that anger is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It’s just a feeling. And while our anger might enable us to harm ourselves or others, the mere tendency to feel anger doesn’t make anyone a bad person. If someone does get angry, it doesn’t mean he or she is wrong; rather, it usually means that the person has been wronged in the past.

Child abuse expert and author Alice Miller wrote about anger in the abused child. In The Roots of Violence are Not Unknown, Miller writes:

As beaten children are not allowed to defend themselves, they must suppress their anger and rage against their parents who have humiliated them, killed their inborn empathy, and insulted their dignity. They will take out this rage later, as adults, on scapegoats, mostly on their own children. Deprived of empathy, some of them will direct their anger against themselves.

Regardless of the immediate target of rage, the actual common enemy often turn out to be the disrespectful. humiliating. and careless treatment of children by those who lacked an ability to empathize. So the next time I feel angry, I’m going to think about just where that anger comes from. Chances are, it comes from a place deep inside me, placed there by adults a very long time ago.

There are different ways to go about trying to end religious child maltreatment. The problem is, none have been too successful. It’s time for a new approach.

 

I’ve looked at this problem…a lot. Is the plan to hope that religion just one day goes away? Not going to happen. The best way to protect children in faith communities is to educate the adults in those communities.

The great news is, many faith leaders, youth program directors, and congregants want to learn more about meeting children’s needs and teaching others about this issue. They want to learn about such things as

child development from birth to age 17
how faith teachings and practices both benefit and harm children
how to effectively respond to allegations of abuse

I know what you’re thinking…If there was a training program that did all that, why would faith communities take part? There are many reasons, but here’s a big one: The training program I’m involved with gives faith communities a chance to grow their congregations. You see, when they complete the (very rigorous) program, they are designated as Child-Friendly Faith Communities and recognized as role models in child protection.

Want to learn more? Email me at designation@childfriendlyfaith.org. Could you contribute to a campaign that’s helping to fund development of this designation program? Click on the image below. (Be sure to watch the awesome video that tells you all about it.)

Take part in this child-friendly faith movement. It’s an opportunity to recognize faith communities that “get” children and leave those that put children’s health and lives at risk to wither away.

Either way, thanks for caring about society’s youngest members!

 

It’s painful enough to learn that at least six members of the Word of Life Christian Church in New Hartford, New York, allegedly beat to death 19-year-old Lucas Leonard and left his younger brother, 17-year-old Christopher, in critical condition. Two of the alleged perpetrators were the victims’ parents, Bruce and Deborah Leonard.

But it’s also highly upsetting to hear members of the public so quickly defend those accused of such an egregious crime.

Last Sunday night, after church services concluded, a group of members sat Lucas and Christopher down for a “counseling session,” according to police. Later, it came out that a “sin” Lucas had to be forgiven for was stating that he had wanted to leave this tight-knit, secretive group. According to witnesses, the boys were held down by church members and subjected beatings that lasted for 14 hours. The boys suffered injuries all over their bodies, including their genitals. When Lucas stopped breathing, the group drive him to the hospital where he was pronounced death. He had been so severely injured that staff there thought he had been shot. Police found Christopher hiding in the church before he was taken to a hospital. Two of the alleged perpetrators, the boys’ parents, have been charged with manslaughter. Four other members of the church have been charged with assault.

And yet, despite the horrifying news of what took place inside the Word of Life, despite the fact that two of the alleged perpetrators are the parents of the victims, onlookers can’t bring themselves to criticize them. “I think they’re good people that made a bad decision,” said a woman who used to work at a church next door.

A woman who attended a Word of Life church service described the it as “very family-oriented.” While she was stunned by news of the beatings, she also implied that the boys somehow deserved the torture session. “There had to be a really good reason,” she said, “for something like that to happen.”

It’s obvious that when it comes to crimes that involve religious people, many Americans simply can’t bring themselves to condemn them. In a CNN news report (no longer viewable), the anchor kept referring to the Word of Life as a “so-called church,” indicating that it didn’t fit with her idea of what a church actually is. Apparently, she couldn’t imagine that anything violent or ugly could be tied to a place of worship.

One can only wonder how people would react had the same crimes occurred in a home, a store, or a secular school. Would people be so willing to defend those accused? If the crimes were committed elsewhere, would a commentator feel obliged to call it a “so-called pet store” or a “so-called home”?

I seriously doubt that would be the case. Instead, I believe people would be rightly calling for those responsible to be punished to the full extent of the law and wouldn’t give a fig about their worldview.

The meaning of church or Christian are highly subjective. Deborah Leonard’s attorney said Word of life was much like any other church, holding regular services and Bible study and providing food to the needy. An ex-member denied reports the church is a cult. “I realize this situation makes it look like this,” she said, “but if you listen to the teachings, they are accurate to the Bible.”

Those who have read my book Breaking Their Will know that religion has both a nurturing and a damaging side. The nonprofit organization the Child-Friendly Faith Project seeks to work with faith communities to ensure that their teachings are beneficial to children and not harmful. This kind of word can’t be done unless people acknowledge that sometimes religious worship can go seriously, even fatally, wrong.

Let’s not allow false perceptions about religious belief and doctrines to cloud our judgement of individuals who are both religious and monstrous.

 

I’m sure you’re aware of the horrific tragedy that took place on March 21 in Brooklyn. Seven children, aged 5 to 16, all from the same family, perished in a fire. The mother and one daughter narrowly escaped.

I stared at photos of the grief-stricken father. I saw images of weeping members of Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn and in Jerusalem where the bodies were buried. Even though I couldn’t imagine what they must be feeling, I tried to join them in their grief.

But I couldn’t. My anger kept getting in the way, as it was impossible for me to stop thinking about the fact that this fire—and others like it—could have been prevented.

As I and another author noted in this blog post, the fire started by a malfunctioning hot plate that had been left on overnight, a typical way to keep food warm on the Sabbath. During this time, many Jews believe they’re not permitted to turn electrical appliances on or off or light or extinguish a flame from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. So the solution is to have a hot plate or a device called a blech (a sheet of metal that sits on a stovetop) heat food for many hours and often while members of the household are sleeping. What’s more, there were no smoke detectors on the floor where the fire started or upstairs.

The dangers of keeping to these rituals are well known. Besides the fire hazards, a flame can go out, causing carbon monoxide poisoning. Or, if a room is not well ventilated, a flame can eat up all the oxygen and cause asphyxiation. A blech can burn a person, especially if the metal extends beyond the edge of a stove.

A blech keeps food warm during the Sabbath. It can also cause burns. If it’s heated by a flame, it poses other risks too.

One “Jewish fire prevention” brochure even advocates that families make kitchens “NO GO ZONES” for children and keep an escape ladder in every bedroom on upper floors.

You would think that many observant families would take extra precautions. Some do, but many do not. Many people won’t even discuss fire safety measures and ignore firefighters who are handing out information in their neighborhoods. I’ve come across many Jewish sites that give all the do’s and don’t’s of observing the Sabbath. Not one warned about fire risks or gave instructions on fire safety.

There there are those writing about the tragedy and taking apologist positions. Children of non-Jewish families die in fires, too, they say. Many children die in car accidents. Space heaters in any home is a common cause of fires. Many people have a flame going all night in their water heaters.

There is more discussion going on now in the wake of the Brooklyn fire. But this blindness, complacency, and defensiveness has to stop. Seven children are dead, and they’re not the only ones who have died this way. The March 21 fire was at least the fourth deadly blaze resulting from Sabbath and other holiday observances in Brooklyn in the last fifteen years.

No religious rite is worth risking the health and safety of children. I urge people of the Jewish faith to acknowledge the risks that go with carrying out these practices, to learn about fire safety, and to take all the necessary precautions.

In our blog post, we urge families to use their oven on the “Sabbath” setting (something I recently discovered in oven manuals), crock pots which are designed to keep food warm for a long time without much supervision, and timers to turn appliances on and off.

We also want religious leaders to encourage congregants to ask questions about the safety of their homes and to take protective measures. Rabbis should have fire officials come to synagogues and give talks on fire safety.

Making Sabbath-observant homes safer would be one way to show respect for the children who lost their lives in the Brooklyn fire and others like it.

Click the video to find out!

 

Boz Tchividjian is an Evangelical Christian, a law professor at Liberty University, and the grandson of the Rev. Billy Graham. What could he possibly have to say that would resonate with atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers? Well, plenty, when it comes to protecting children from abuse and neglect.

Boz founded Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (GRACE). Since its inception, GRACE has conducted unflinching investigations into religious organizations accused of ignoring or covering up crimes of child sexual abuse. Consequently, these organizations have taken meaningful steps to right those wrongs and to try to prevent abuse from happening in the future.

Please click the video image to learn what Boz has to say about how we all can help protect children from being victimized.

 

     

 

What can the nonreligious learn about child abuse from Boz Tchividjian?
Click the video to find out!

 

Boz Tchividjian is an Evangelical Christian, a law professor at Liberty University, and the grandson of the Rev. Billy Graham. What could he possibly have to say that would resonate with atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers? Well, plenty, when it comes to protecting children from abuse and neglect.

Boz founded Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (GRACE). Since its inception, GRACE has conducted unflinching investigations into religious organizations accused ignoring or covering up crimes of child sexual abuse. Consequently, these organizations have taken meaningful steps to right those wrongs and to try to prevent abuse from happening in the future.

Please click the video image to learn what Boz has to say about how we all can help protect children from being victimized.

 

     

 

 

Last weekend, I spoke at the annual  ExMormon Foundation  Conference. The organization supports those who have left, or been excommunicated from, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The “ExMo” conference is always held in “Mormon central,” or Salt Lake City. Many attendees came from Utah but I met people from all over the US.

The youngest attendee was twenty-one-year-old Austin Eldridge, a college undergraduate studying cognitive neuroscience in Houston, Texas.  Austin grew up in the LDS Church and was an absolute believer until he entered his teenage years. When he was sixteen, he summoned up the courage to tell his parents that he could no longer believe Mormon doctrines. Despite the church’s proclamations about the importance of supportive families, Austin’s parents did what many Mormons do when a relative no longer believes—they emotionally disowned him.

I asked Austin about his story, which is one of both tragedy and hope.

 

HEIMLICH: What was it like for you growing up in the LDS Church?

ELDRIDGE: There was a lot of emphasis placed on living the commandments of Mormon doctrine and following the teachings of the prophet. Central to those ideas is serving a two-year mission (for men), to get married in the temple, and to have many children. These ideas were taught for as long as I can remember. To satisfy these goals, we had to adhere to strict moral guidelines. For example, drinking either coffee or tea is verboten. There is also a lot of sexual shaming in the church, such that members are taught to avoid sexual urges at all costs.

I seemed to take those teachings a lot more seriously than the other Mormons around me. I genuinely believed in following the scriptures of the church, and I felt a profound sense of guilt when I broke even a small rule. This became especially traumatic when I was going through puberty. Essentially, I was genuinely terrified of being attracted to a girl because I thought that attraction was the first step on the slippery slope to “sexual sin.” Even though I no longer believe in sexual sin today, that fear is something I still struggle with.

HEIMLICH: Did family life center around the church? How would you describe your parents’ religiosity and how did that affect how they interacted with you and your siblings?

ELDRIDGE: The church played a significant and central role in my family life. My father served in the local church leadership, as did my mother. I always thought that my mother was much more religious than my father, as she would always make time for the church, whereas he was slightly more distant from it. Since my mother was the one homeschooling us, she was always sure that we maintained a proper standing in the church, morally and spiritually. She always made sure that we completed the little “milestones,” such as “Gospel in Action and Duty to God.” This milestone requires children to memorize scriptures, the LDS articles of faith, and a few other things, while teenage men must perform community service and reach out to youth who are not very active in the church.

HEIMLICH: Were both your parents very devout believers?

ELDRIDGE: I think if it weren’t for my mother’s intense involvement in the church my father wouldn’t have been involved in the church at all. But even he went along with the church’s expectations of children. For example, perfection is something that is heavily emphasized in Mormonism, since the end goal is to become as perfect in this life as possible so that believers can then be fully “perfected” in the next. This belief of the afterlife actually affected my life as a child, because if I slacked off on doing chores, completing schoolwork, working in my Boy Scout group, or carrying out church-related activities, my parents would deride me and tell me that I was irresponsible, while ignoring past instances of when I successfully accomplished my tasks. It was as if I could do no good. To this day, I struggle with the belief that I am not living up to some unrealistic standard.

HEIMLICH: How young were you when you began to question whether what you were being taught about the belief system was the truth? Was there a pivotal moment in your life when you realized that you didn’t believe any of it or was it more like a slow drip-drip of doubt?

ELDRIDGE: My parents and I had a really close relationship until I stopped believing. I actually found myself questioning the teachings of the Mormon Church accidentally. I was about thirteen or fourteen and spending a lot of time on the Internet arguing with people on discussion boards about politics and other things. Inevitably, the subject would turn to religion and Mormonism came up. People were attacking the church that I believed in. I was determined to prove them wrong, so I ended up researching the history of the church. I didn’t realize that my search for “the truth” would end up proving myself wrong. When I stopped believing in Mormon theology, I was terrified of my family finding out. Given their emphasis on perfection, I didn’t think they would take it well, so I ended up hiding my true beliefs from them for the next two years. As these years passed, I grew more distant from my family.

HEIMLICH:  When you were sixteen years old, you decided to be honest with your parents and let them know your feelings about the church’s teachings. That must have been a very vulnerable moment for you. How did they react? Did their reaction surprise you?

ELDRIDGE: When I was preparing myself to tell my parents that I no longer believed in the church’s teachings, I didn’t expect them to react well, but I was completely unprepared for the way they did react. I wanted to tell my mother first, since I felt I could better predict her reaction. She was absolutely shocked when I told her and asked me how I felt I could still be a good person without believing in the church. Later that week, both of my parents confronted me. My mother accused me of practicing satanic rituals, and they both told me that they would no longer love me nor consider me a part of their family if I didn’t believe in Mormonism. They also told me that I had to stay away from my siblings and ordered me to remain confined to my room. I obeyed, not wanting to further inflame the situation.

HEIMLICH:  I can’t imagine what that must have been like, isolated in your room, knowing that your parents didn’t want to have anything to do with you.

ELDRIDGE: The situation was so traumatic, I can’t even remember just how many days it went on for. It could have been a week or two, but I honestly don’t have a sense of time for those moments. I was so incredibly shocked, so hurt, I didn’t know what to say. There I was, sixteen years old, hearing my parents plainly state that their love for me was conditional—that it hinged on me completely adopting their beliefs. After a while, I couldn’t withstand the pressure any longer, so I decided to lie to my family and pretend that I had renewed my faith in Mormonism. I lived this double life until I was eighteen.

HEIMLICH: You left home right after you graduated from high school. What was life like for you once you were on the outside?

ELDRIDGE: Life on the outside was both difficult and freeing. It was difficult because I had just left my home, my younger siblings who I love, and everything I was familiar with. My parents also did everything in their power to prevent me from leaving successfully, such as trying to alienate me from my friends outside the church by threatening to sue them. Fortunately, I did find some very good, caring, and generous people who were willing to look out for my wellbeing and who found a home for me. I maintained contact with my family via email for the next two years, but my parents were so verbally caustic that I had to cease contact.

Life on the outside has been freeing, because I can now live my life without the constraints of Mormonism. I can now live my life honestly and authentically. Despite the pain that I went through after leaving home, the past three years have been the happiest I have ever experienced. I have wonderful friends who accept me for who I am—unconditionally. There are still many wounds left to heal, but each year my life gets better.

HEIMLICH:  How much do you attribute church teachings to the way your parents treated you when they found out you were not a believer? I wonder if some Mormons reading this will say, “His parents were not ‘true’ believers. No ‘real’ Mormon parents would do that to their offspring.”

ELDRIDGE: The Mormon Church implicitly and explicitly encourages Mormon families to alienate relatives who no longer believe. There are also similar messages about not doing so. Mormon doctrines are so contradictory that a member can take either a hardline stance or a fairly relaxed one and still feel devout, so I think the “true believer” label is a bit of a misnomer. Interestingly, I heard through the grapevine that some of the Mormons who knew my parents thought that their response to me leaving home was cruel. But I think these reactions are made at an individual level. How a given family responds depends on which parts of Mormon doctrine they listen to and take seriously. For example, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting a number of ex-Mormons whose families have treated them with kindness. But I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting an even greater number of ex-Mormons whose families treated them horribly.

HEIMLICH: What kind of relationship (if any) do you have with your parents or other family members?

ELDRIDGE: My parents saw to it that I didn’t have a relationship with family members or friends by lying to them about why I left. For example, my parents said I left home because I was jealous of my younger siblings, or that I wanted to prove to everyone “how much of a man” I was. They also said that I stole their car. The last one particularly surprised me since the only thing I left with was a backpack filled with clothes and a duffle bag of books. I am hopeful though that I will one day reconnect with all of my siblings.

HEIMLICH:  What kinds of changes do you think need to happen in the LDS Church to prevent other kids who have doubts or flat out don’t believe in the doctrines from suffering the same kind rejection from their parents and other difficulties? Or do you think that all religious organizations should be done away with?

ELDRIDGE: That’s a tricky question because of how conflicting a lot of Mormon teachings are. On one hand, the Mormon Church claims that it’s all about strengthening families. But on the other hand, Mormons who want to be considered worthy of entering the temple must state that they do not associate with “apostates” and that includes apostate family members. So, aside from a significant shift in doctrine and culture, I don’t think there is much that can be done to prevent others who leave the church from having similar experiences. I do think that religious organizations provide important social utilities, such as community and group identity, but I don’t think that theology is necessary to provide such benefits. I think that any tightly knit social organization can provide the same benefits that religious organizations do. And if they can do that without dogma and zealotry, all the better.

 

Are you someone who feels lost after having left or been rejected by the LDS community? Or are you still in the church and looking for a way out? If so, here are websites that offer support:

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/

http://exmormon.org/

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/

And feel free to join my closed Child-Friendly Faith Facebook group.

Photo by guardianlv.com

While the media seems largely focused on the fact that the Minnesota Vikings finally decided to bench its star running back, a more important—and politically incorrect—question needs to be asked:

To what extent, if any, did Adrian Peterson’s religious beliefs and cultural background as an African American contribute to him beating and injuring his son?

Many details about the case have been well publicized and have not been denied by Peterson: Last spring, he “disciplined” his four-year-old son at his Houston home by stuffing leaves in his mouth and hitting him repeatedly with the branch of a tree or “switch.” The boy was also reportedly beaten with a belt. The “whoopings,” as Peterson called them, resulted in the boy sustaining lacerations, bruises, and welts on his legs, arms, buttocks, and genitals. The injuries were reported by a doctor after the boy’s mother took him for a previously scheduled appointment.

The 29-year-old Peterson is a deeply religious Christian. His Twitter feed is peppered with religious proclamations and snapshots of Bible verses. The conservative Christian 700 Club has featured Peterson on its website. And Peterson seems to wholeheartedly believe that children should be disciplined using physical punishment.

Upon questioning, his son told his mother that Peterson “likes belts and switches and has a whooping room.” On September 15, Peterson tweeted: “Deep in my heart I have always believed I could have been one of those kids that was lost in the streets without the discipline instilled in me by my parents and others relatives.” Peterson’s adherence to such an ideology is particularly remarkable, given the fact that another of his sons was allegedly beaten to death when the boy was two years old. 

After intense public pressure, the cancellation of a major NFL sponsor, apparent threats by other companies to cancel sponsorship, and the news that Peterson had been accused of abusing another son in 2013 (Peterson was not charged in that case), the Vikings dramatically changed course. Initially, after Peterson was indicted on child abuse charges, the Vikings had him sit out one game and then allowed him to rejoin the team. After the public outcry, officials barred him from all team activities. Some predict he will never again wear a Vikings jersey.

It probably wasn’t helpful to Peterson’s case that after the initial slap on the wrist, he sent out this tweet, indicating that God was on his side.

Many people Doubted YOU! Now look at you! You didnt Overcome Major Obstacles in your Life! You Identified who u were in Christ! . . . If you could only see how God views you! Just understand that you are a Mighty Vessel that God Chose to do Great things!

Now, statistics on the use of corporal punishment in conservative Christian households and those in the African American community are raising questions as to whether Peterson’s religious beliefs and cultural background fueled his ideology about the need to control his son’s behavior in this way and, ultimately, to injure him.

I’m not aware of any studies that show that children in one faith or racial group are more at risk for abuse than others, but there is reason to believe that children who are physically punished are more at risk for being physically abused than those who are not physically punished. Studies show that a vast majority of child abuse is delivered in the midst of adults using corporal punishment. Furthermore, children are more likely to be injured when parents use corporal punishment frequently or use implements to spank children.[1]

Corporal punishment among conservative Christians

Americans overall have been spanking less and less. The percentage of parents who favor corporal punishment has dropped from 84 percent in 1986 to about 70 percent in 2012. Many Christians choose not to spank their kids, pointing out that, according to the Bible, Jesus never advocated that children should be taught respect through hitting. Some Christian leaders have changed their views and now oppose spanking.

On the other hand, conservative Christians tend to believe that their religion requires them to spank. Many justify this choice by referencing numerous passages in the Book of Proverbs that condone using “the rod” to discipline children. For example, Proverbs 23:13—14 states: “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die. Punish them with the rod and save them from death.”

Some Christians also see the need to use corporal punishment to correct children’s inherent “sinfulness.” Days after Peterson’s indictment, a psychologist and minister with the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family wrote an op-ed in Time magazine expressing this sentiment:

Unfortunately, each of us enters this world with desires that are selfish, unkind, and harmful to others and ourselves. Spanking, then, can be one effective discipline option among several in a parents’ tool chest as they seek to steer their children away from negative behaviors and guide them toward ultimately becoming responsible, healthy, happy adults.

Corporal punishment among African Americans

Similarly, African Americans also rely heavily on the use of corporal punishment. One  that looked at the childrearing of kindergartners shows that 89 percent of black parents spanked compared to 79 percent of white parents. According to a New York Times op-ed written by Georgetown University Sociology Professor and author Michael E. Dyson, the belief among African Americans that they must discipline their children using physical punishment is inherited from the days of slavery.

The lash of the plantation overseer fell heavily on children to whip them into fear of white authority. Terror in the field often gave way to parents beating black children in the shack, or at times in the presence of the slave owner in forced cooperation to break a rebellious child’s spirit. Black parents beat their children to keep them from misbehaving in the eyes of whites who had the power to send black youth to their deaths for the slightest offense.

Dyson goes on to say, “If beating children began, paradoxically, as a violent preventive of even greater violence, it was enthusiastically embraced in black culture, especially when God was recruited. As an ordained Baptist minister with a doctorate in religion, I have heard all sorts of religious excuses for whippings.”

Defending Peterson

This association might explain why a number of black athletes have come to Peterson’s defense, often stating that the kind of beating Peterson gave his son is not all that uncommon among blacks. On a New York radio broadcast, Lions running back Reggie Bush said he and many of his friends were punished in the same way as Peterson chose to do with his son and that he would “harshly” punish his one-year-old daughter if need be. “I definitely will try to—will obviously not leave bruises or anything like that on her,” Bush said. “But I definitely will discipline her harshly depending on what the situation is.” Initially Bush said he’d consider using a switch but then said he misspoke. “I said spanking,” he said. “Spanking is different than a branch or a stick.”

In an interview on NFL Today, NBA Hall-of-Famer Charles Barkley said corporal punishment is a way of life among the black, southern culture. “Whipping, we do that all the time. Every black parent in the South is going to be in jail under [Peterson’s] circumstances,” Barkley said. Peterson has shown remorse for injuring his child, yet he has continued to defend his decision to “discipline” (what others call “beat”) his child. On the day of his indictment, he told investigators, “I feel very confident with my actions because I know my intent.”

One African American blogger noted:

Corporal punishment is a cultural norm in the black community based on their Christian beliefs. They take to heart biblical passages like Proverbs 13:24. …People may find this abhorrent, but Peterson can use freedom of religion as a defense. His lawyer will put the Bible on the stand.

Meanwhile, some celebrated football stars, both black and white, such as Cris Carter and Boomer Esiason, have deplored Peterson’s actions and his justification that he was simply disciplining his child the same way that he was disciplined in his youth. “The five most destructive words to our village are “That’s how I was raised,” wrote NBA champion Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Time.

It’s safe to say the conversation about the morality of corporal punishment is not over. Sadly, it took a high-profile case of severe child abuse to begin a meaningful public discussion on this topic. But in addition to debating the pros and cons of physical punishment, we must also examine the religious and cultural roots of spanking among conservative Christians and in the African American community, as well as Americans of all faiths and races. If we don’t, we have little chance to protect children such as the son of Adrian Peterson.

Janet Heimlich is the author of “Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment” (Prometheus Books) and Executive Director of the Child-Friendly Faith Project.

[1] Janet Heimlich, Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment (Prometheus Books, 2011) p. 76, 78.