The Bible isn’t a parenting guide: Why the religious right’s hypocrisy is so obscene

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/29/the_bible_isnt_a_parenting_guide_why_the_religious_rights_hypocrisy_is_so_obscene_partner/

SUNDAY, MAR 29, 2015 05:00 AM MST

For a faith that professes to value "life," many Christian conservatives are disturbingly blasé about child abuse

VALERIE TARICO, ALTERNET


(Credit: Twin Design via Shutterstock)

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Why do the same people who fight against abortion argue that parents should have the right to beat their children and deny them medical care or education, as some conservative Republicans have done recently? How can someone oppose family planning because a pill or IUD might have the rare and unintended consequence of interfering with implantation, and then endorse beating a child, which might have the rare and unintended consequence of battering her to death?

These two positions fit together seamlessly only when we understand the Iron Age view of the child imbedded throughout the Bible, and how that view has shaped the priorities and behavior of biblical literalists.

Extreme Biblical Parenting

In 2014, Pentecostal parents Herbert and Catherine Schaible went to jail after a second of their nine children died from easily treatable bacterial pneumonia. The Schaibles belong to a sect that relies on prayer for physical as well as spiritual healing. In a police statement, Herbert Schiable explained that medicine “is against our religious beliefs.” Sects like their point to the New Testament books of Matthew and Mark, which both say that devout believers can pray for anything in faith and God will grant their request (Mark 11:24 and Matthew 21:22). All that is required, according to the writer of Matthew, is faith the size of a tiny mustard seed. The Schaible’s pastor blamed the deaths of the two children on a “spiritual lack” in the parents.

Most devout Bible believers turn to science when their children can’t breathe, but 38 US states have now passed laws to protect parents who don’t—along with parents who beat their children in accordance with biblical advice, or deny them education on religious grounds.

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. How dare this person

try to "score points" off of the tragic death of two children, which had nothing to do with religion, anyway? Just as so many apologist posters here (we all know who they are) have tried to argue every time an incident like this is posted.

And why should the state be sending these parents to jail? As apologist posters here have also argued explicitly, parents in these situations have surely suffered enough, so what can the state do to them that could possibly be worse? It's a "self-punishing crime", as they call it so blithely.

[Cartoonist]

2. Did someone say "literalists"?

These two positions fit together seamlessly only when we understand the Iron Age view of the child imbedded throughout the Bible, and how that view has shaped the priorities and behavior of biblical literalists.
-
Did someone say "Iron Age"?

[cbayer]

3. Yes, the article is about literalists who are using Iron Age methods of child rearing.

[NYC_SKP]

4. K/R and apologies for any snarkish replies your OP might attract.

Not sure why but I'm reminded of the little fish that would come up and nibble at my mom's feet the time I took her out on a snorkling boat excursion to Molokini.

She giggled, it was precious.

OT: evil people are evil people and they are happy to find any excuse available to rationalize their evil.

IMO, nothing in the US or state constitution protects such "religious practices" as whipping a child or such.

[cbayer]

5. Water seeks its own level.

Parents that are abusive always find reasons to justify their behavior. They have likely been abused themselves.

I sincerely hope that religious protections never include being able to abuse your child.

[NYC_SKP]

7. True indeed, abusive behaviors beget more of same.

From my years in teaching, but also in life, it's an infinitely valuable practice to consider that the person acting out badly may have experiences and pressures that led them to these sad ways.

[skepticscott]

19. As expected and predicted

the apologist arguments that none of this has anything to do with religion have begun. Yes, we know you need to pretend that religion is "just an excuse", but try not to make yourself look so obviously biased by only claiming that when people do bad things.

[Humanist_Activist]

6. I think anyone who turns to the Bible as a guide for anything is going to run into big problems...

it is not a guidebook for anything.

[LiberalAndProud]

8. And people accuse atheists of having no moral compass.

Ironic.

[okasha]

9. And yet, people who do this and consider themselves knowledgable about the Bible,

somehow miss the part where Paul, who had some unspecified medical condition, travelled with a physician. And Jesus had some rather dire warnings for those who harm children.

[cbayer]

10. Obscene hypocrisy, as the title notes.

If this "religious freedom" think moves in this direction, it will be truly way too far.

We need a new term for "religious freedom". Any thoughts?

[okasha]

11. It's a failure of both secular and religious education.

Some apparently don't get that religious freedom stops where crime starts. That means you're not allowed to beat or withhold care from children, spouses, or strangers. And no matter how devout and traditional a Druid you are, if you perform a human sacrifice you'll wind up in jail.

On a religious level, ironically, literalists seem to miss a lot. For instance, this from the prophet Micah, "What does God require of you, oh man, but this: to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?"

[cbayer]

12. Something has to give here.

I would hope that SCOTUS would clearly draw the line you describe, but I'm not at all hopeful about that happening.

It's swiss cheese religion - big holes where the good lessons should be.

[okasha]

13. Vote the Teapartiers out of office.

Repeal the reactionary legislation. Appoint or vote for liberal judges.

How to do this: get wholeheartedly behind a Democratic candidate with experience, high recognition and mile-long coattails.

[cbayer]

14. Would love to see the people rise up against the teapublicans, but

there doesn't seem to be a positive trend in this regard.

As for our presidential candidate, I am entirely with you. I supported her last time and I will support her again.

[okasha]

15. We have to make it happen.

One more Republican, and I'm headed for San Miguel.

[cbayer]

16. San Miguel de Allende?

That would be fantastic!

[okasha]

17. The same.

I could probably get a job at the Instituto and maybe finish a BFA.

[cbayer]

18. We went through there last year but only briefly.

I hope that you will consider it. Mexico is wonderful and really inexpensive. We could even send the jet to bring you out to the yacht for a visit.