From: hoppersm@infonode.ingr.com (Marcia Hoppers)
Subject: Re: Donahue: Options for Kids
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:18:00 GMT

In article <C0oKBs.Auu@cscns.com>, rks@cscns.com (Dancing With synergy) writes:
> My argument comes in when you make blaket statements about *the way things
> are* like your religion has a cornerstone on the *way things are*. It is
> the way things are for *you*. Personally, I find the idea that I should
> submit to a man repugnant. I believe that we are all born with divine 
> power within us. The problem with abusive parents is that they try to 
> *steal* that divinity. 

I am not a Fundamentalist so anyone who is please feel free to correct me
but my interpretation is that the concept of the wife submitting to her
husband is *always* within the context of the husband submitting to Christ
and living a Godly life. While I have a different interpretation of Scripture
and do not subscribe to submission personally I do know many families who
believe and practice this and I respect them for it and admire them for
being loving, functional families.

Unfortunately, this concept breaks down in some families where there is
an exaggeration of the role of the husband and he becomes Lord and Master
of the family. IMHO this facilitates/increases any dysfunction that may
be present. For example, incest by the father occurs in *many* "religious"
families. My argument is that it is not the religion but the abuse of
religion that is at fault - for example, presenting God to a child as a
punishing, vengeful higher power (very scary to a child of course) rather
than loving and accepting in order to exercise further control over the
child so that sexual abuse can be perpetuated.

The child is not only a victim of sexual abuse but religious/spiritual abuse
as well. Religious abuse also occurs of course outside of the family when
the perpetrator is in a religious position - priest, minister, etc.

IMHO a child needs spiritual guidance from a caretaker, a child should not
be expected to seek a nurturing, fulfilling relationship with God entirely
on his/her own as this requires *self-acceptance* and self-esteem (IMHO a
person must maturely accept his/herself as an imperfect yet valuable person
before *fully* understanding that God is accepting him/her as imperfect and
valuable). A religious abuser takes advantage of this characteristic of a
child to the detriment of the child's well-being.

> care of themselves than others. I think the one thing that is certain
> is that children don't like change. They are not going to throw their
> lives into upheaval for no reason. 

I agree. Also, if change is necessary in a child's life in order to assure
protection of the child, it needs to happen *as fast as possible*. A delay
in a temporary situation - a shelter, whatever - can be damaging to a child
who needs permanence.

> Painting all lawyers with the same brush is no different than painting
> all children with the same brush. Or all races or all religions. There
> are lawyers who *are* concerned with justice. 

I agree and it is often the *system* (child welfare system, etc.) that is
at fault, that creates delays in finding solutions in the best interest of
the child, or fails to find the best solution for the child.

> namaste
> 
> //gisle

Marcia
Xref: sparky alt.support:1585 misc.kids:31979