The Muslims are Taking Over The World

[bmacwilliam]

The brightest and most likeable people I've met are often South African Muslims. Possible friendship with them usually hits the rocks when they've begun opening up to me, and I start hearing the tired old unoriginal rants against Zionists and America. Countering this rationally and with benevolence has only made me a figure of scorn.

It's a Jeckyll and Hyde mentality that is confusing and extremely disappointing (presumptuous as this sounds )

(As I've asked before: what do you judge other people by, your morality, or theirs'?)

Tony

Of course n=1 proves nothing, but I have a story like this too. I worked for an Canadian branch of a large American technology company when the twin towers came down. The next day I learned that a Muslim guy working in another department (just down the hall) jumped out of his chair and cheered when the first tower fell.

He works for an American company, for years, yet this is what happens. All I could think was WTF??? It's so screwed up on so many levels. I just don't get it. Of course, he was fired, but still. I'm not a violent person, but this was one of those times I honestly wished I witnessed this so I could have smashed his head through his computer screen.

I makes we worried to wonder how much of this sickness is out there.

Bob

[dan2100]

Dan and Robert,

At the risk of seeming glib and over-simplifying, I'm beginning to think that the strength and the weakness of the more moderate Abrahamic religions is their mixed premises. When one is taught obedience, but at the same time, "God helps those who helps themselves", one is being allowed one's individualism - to a degree.

I have heard 100's of variations of the sort - 'think for yourself','live and let live', 'you can't take the Scriptures literally'- approach from Jews and Christians.

The strength (and weakness) of Islam is that there is no such inconsistency. It hardly allows for any such liberalism, or independence.

I don't doubt inconsistency, especially when it tempers really bad premises, might make for something better than a consistent position. And I do think the major faiths, especially the Abrahamic ones (all of them -- not excluding Islam), have baked in inconsistencies. This is not news and is, in fact, a major debating point for atheists and others against all forms of scriptural literalism.

Much of the inconsistency seems to come from these religions being long-term historical movements and, for the most part, their scriptures were collected and canonized later on. Judaism, obviously, has the longest history of the three Abrahamic faiths and its key texts were gathered over a period, if my studies are correct, of about a thousand years ending sometime in the Second or Third Century CE.

That said, though, and as my parenthetic comment notes and in my view, Islam is not entirely consistent either -- hence the use of abrogation to reconcile contradictory passages. Were Islam's scriptures consistent, what need for abrogation and interpretation?

And, also, were inconsistency the seed bed for liberalism and intellectual independence, why weren't the various Christian and Jewish societies of Antiquity and the Middle Ages hotbeds of tolerance and freewheeling thought? Instead, their histories tend to read, from what little I've read of them, like fairly intolerant societies. I doubt, had any of us been around back them and looking on for where we thought free societies and independent thought would take off, we'd have been focusing on Jewish and Christian societies -- at least not until the Late Middle Ages.

Of course, there are some exceptions, but the rule seems to have been intolerance, persecution, and fairly oppressive societies. (In my view, too, some of the more liberal things of the Late Middle Ages might have been due to the Church, but I think this is more because power was divided between the Church and State -- not because the Church was intrinsically liberal. In other words, when there's a competition between rival centers of power, often some freedom ekes its way into existence. Also, the rivals themselves might, because neither can overrule the other, prefer some degree of limitation -- as long as this applies all around and, of course, rationalizations can arise for this.) At least, this is how I see the history. I admit to being no specialist in this area and perhaps others can correct any of my errors here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Women are equal to men in my country and the "law of the land" should protect them ESPECIALLY if they are within an organization that wants to take rights away from them. I couldn't possibly disagree more with your line of thinking.

Bob,

When you say "protect," do you mean that a person has a right to redress in a court of law for infringement of rights? Or do you mean forcing someone to think like you do?

My way is the first. And since you "couldn't possibly disagree more with" my "line of thinking," I suspect your way is the second.

For example, how would your concept "protect" a woman who likes being a Muslim and wants to be one and wants to observe Shari'a? Would you, for example, make Islam illegal, or make it illegal for peaceful Muslims to meet and discuss how they should live?

My way says live and let live, so long as the peace is kept.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

As I understand shari'a, it's not just a matter of going to your local imam and asking for a fatwa on some little dispute between you and your neighbors in the Muslim community. (Most fataawa are about little things; they are not grand pronouncements and certainly not death sentences.)

I mean, Muslim believers go to their local imam for advice or rulings, even in the USA. The legal system need make no special allowance for a lot of these things; they're about grown-ups getting pastoral advice or accepting informal pastoral arbitration.

But shari'a is all-encompassing, and traditionally those who are deemed subject to it aren't entitled to be asked whether they want to follow it or not. It was never ground down and smoothed out through the many centuries of accommodations and adjustments (and sheer reductions in the raw power wielded by religious establishments, often as the outcome of wars or big cultural upheavals) that allow gittim or annulments to coexist with divorces granted by secular courts.

Also, some domestic-relations provisions in shari'a would be deemed grossly inequitable by nearly all non-Muslims. Adonis says the Qur'an doesn't have to be read that way, but many imams still believe there is divine permission (in some circumstances, encouragement) to beat your wife (or wives).

And there are other provisions that I doubt Adonis will dispute (though he is welcome to correct me): A man can have four wives; a woman can't have four husbands. A man can divorce one of his wives pretty much any time he feels like it; a woman can't divorce her husband unless he lets her.

So when shari'a is allowed to be implemented in Muslim neighborhoods, as is being done in some European countries today, the effect is to make everyone in the neighborhood subject to it, whether they want it or not, while keeping regular law enforcement and courts out of the place (unless there is a riot or a major violent crime). Even though the current European exercises in local shari'a have not (so far as I know) extended to throwing gay men off 6-story buildings, or stoning adulterers, or executing ex-Muslims, or punishing rape victims instead of rapists, or refusing to do anything to perpetrators of "honor killings," or cutting off the hands of pickpockets, they further isolate the Muslims from everyone else in the country and cause all kinds of other trouble.

And if shari'a is ever applied to an entire society ruled by Muslims (which is how it was originally expected to work)— well, there are provisions for slavery and dhimmi status and other forms of subordination that the rest of the world has largely left behind, will not accept, and should never accept.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

The brightest and most likeable people I've met are often South African Muslims. Possible friendship with them usually hits the rocks when they've begun opening up to me, and I start hearing the tired old unoriginal rants against Zionists and America. Countering this rationally and with benevolence has only made me a figure of scorn.

It's a Jeckyll and Hyde mentality that is confusing and extremely disappointing (presumptuous as this sounds )

(As I've asked before: what do you judge other people by, your morality, or theirs'?)

Tony

Of course n=1 proves nothing, but I have a story like this too. I worked for an Canadian branch of a large American technology company when the twin towers came down. The next day I learned that a Muslim guy working in another department (just down the hall) jumped out of his chair and cheered when the first tower fell.

He works for an American company, for years, yet this is what happens. All I could think was WTF??? It's so screwed up on so many levels. I just don't get it. Of course, he was fired, but still. I'm not a violent person, but this was one of those times I honestly wished I witnessed this so I could have smashed his head through his computer screen.

I makes we worried to wonder how much of this sickness is out there.

Bob

Bob:

Much more than you know. The reason that I say that is that I have been permitted, for a number of reasons, to have been accepted into some Muslim families at a somewhat intimate level.

It is much more ingrained than you could possibly realize. Moreover, the insularity is stronger in this religion than any other that I have observed. I have been involved with some folks from some extremely out on the edge religions, cults and movements during my political and regular life.

Just the concept of "reversion" is an incredible concept to entertain. The fact that it is a rock solid belief that even prior to Mohamed, Peace be Upon Him, everyone was a Muslim is an extraordinary stretch of faith.

Yet it is believed. I do know, that the American persons who became Muslims, that I knew and know, "before and after their reversion," [now there is a phrase that would be worthy of Steve Wright], behave like "Moonies." I knew a married couple who were third from the top of the American Reverend Moon Cult. Knew them real well!

I have also been close with fundamentalist Christians who refuse to have social security numbers, etc.

They do not come close to what I see of Americans who "revert."

This is a huge problem and the "tolerance and understanding of Americans," will probably get a large number of us killed.

However, I do not have an answer to the problem. I see the problem clearly.

Adam

Edited March 12, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I wonder, in the European neighborhoods you mention where shari'a is in effect, do the local Islamic authorities have their own armed law enforcement agents?

That's the acid test. And I am against that.

I have no problem with security officers to protect citizens and property, like banks have, but not enforcement officers who issue fines and so forth. That privilege belongs to the government of the country.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Women are equal to men in my country and the "law of the land" should protect them ESPECIALLY if they are within an organization that wants to take rights away from them. I couldn't possibly disagree more with your line of thinking.

Bob,

When you say "protect," do you mean that a person has a right to redress in a court of law for infringement of rights? Or do you mean forcing someone to think like you do?

My way is the first. And since you "couldn't possibly disagree more with" my "line of thinking," I suspect your way is the second.

For example, how would your concept "protect" a woman who likes being a Muslim and wants to be one and wants to observe Shari'a? Would you, for example, make Islam illegal, or make it illegal for peaceful Muslims to meet and discuss how they should live?

My way says live and let live, so long as the peace is kept.

Michael

Islam illegal? No. Islam trumping any existing laws, no way.

Religion should not trump law under almost any circumstance. I believe we indeed "force" everyone to respect some very basic human rights, gender equality being one, yes - force. They don't have to think like me, but I will certainly not tolerate an unequal treatment of an entire gender regardless of whether they say they wish it upon themselves or not. That's right - regardless. Why? For one thing because raising children under this nonsense is without a doubt an initiation of force and they have no choice in the matter but to be harmed by this nonsense. It's abusive.

Bob

Edited March 12, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Xray]

Michael,

As I understand shari'a, it's not just a matter of going to your local imam and asking for a fatwa on some little dispute between you and your neighbors in the Muslim community. (Most fataawa are about little things; they are not grand pronouncements and certainly not death sentences.)

I mean, Muslim believers go to their local imam for advice or rulings, even in the USA. The legal system need make no special allowance for a lot of these things; they're about grown-ups getting pastoral advice or accepting informal pastoral arbitration.

But shari'a is all-encompassing, and traditionally those who are deemed subject to it aren't entitled to be asked whether they want to follow it or not. It was never ground down and smoothed out through the many centuries of accommodations and adjustments (and sheer reductions in the raw power wielded by religious establishments, often as the outcome of wars or big cultural upheavals) that allow gittim or annulments to coexist with divorces granted by secular courts.

Also, some domestic-relations provisions in shari'a would be deemed grossly inequitable by nearly all non-Muslims. Adonis says the Qur'an doesn't have to be read that way, but many imams still believe there is divine permission (in some circumstances, encouragement) to beat your wife (or wives).

And there are other provisions that I doubt Adonis will dispute (though he is welcome to correct me): A man can have four wives; a woman can't have four husbands. A man can divorce one of his wives pretty much any time he feels like it; a woman can't divorce her husband unless he lets her.

So when shari'a is allowed to be implemented in Muslim neighborhoods, as is being done in some European countries today, the effect is to make everyone in the neighborhood subject to it, whether they want it or not, while keeping regular law enforcement and courts out of the place (unless there is a riot or a major violent crime). Even though the current European exercises in local shari'a have not (so far as I know) extended to throwing gay men off 6-story buildings, or stoning adulterers, or executing ex-Muslims, or punishing rape victims instead of rapists, or refusing to do anything to perpetrators of "honor killings," or cutting off the hands of pickpockets, they further isolate the Muslims from everyone else in the country and cause all kinds of other trouble.

And if shari'a is ever applied to an entire society ruled by Muslims (which is how it was originally expected to work)— well, there are provisions for slavery and dhimmi status and other forms of subordination that the rest of the world has largely left behind, will not accept, and should never accept.

Robert Campbell

Great post, Robert. You said it all.

I wonder, in the European neighborhoods you mention where shari'a is in effect, do the local Islamic authorities have their own armed law enforcement agents?

Excuse the cyncism, but they won't even need them as long as spineless, cowardly European judges play into their hands.

The scandalous example of a German judge giving a domestic abuser of Islamic faith a pass because 'his religion allows it' makes it clear that those bent on introducing the sharia are not faced with huge hurdles in other countries ...

Also, the principle of non-initiation of force? I'm sorry but it's not the Muslim community that needs to learn this.. It's the West..

Think about it: Isn't the stoning of persons who do not conform to the morality standards propagated by believers in religion a classic case of intiation of force?

And you did advocate stoning, didn't you, if it was (religiously) "justified" (if I recall your posts on that accurately). When I asked you if you would personally throw a stone, you did not answer with a "NO", but said (I'm paraphrasing) 'it depends on the circumstances'.

[Dan Ust]: And you've never had this feeling with the more strident followers of other Abrahamic faiths? Do they not also counsel unquestioning or nearly unquestioning obedience all around?

They sure do. All Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianism, Islam) are based on unquestioning obedience to their god.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Xray

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

Much more than you know. The reason that I say that is that I have been permitted, for a number of reasons, to have been accepted into some Muslim families at a somewhat intimate level.

It is much more ingrained than you could possibly realize. Moreover, the insularity is stronger in this religion than any other that I have observed. I have been involved with some folks from some extremely out on the edge religions, cults and movements during my political and regular life.

Just the concept of "reversion" is an incredible concept to entertain. The fact that it is a rock solid belief that even prior to Mohamed, Peace be Upon Him, everyone was a Muslim is an extraordinary stretch of faith.

Yet it is believed. I do know, that the American persons who became Muslims, that I knew and know, "before and after their reversion," [now there is a phrase that would be worthy of Steve Wright], behave like "Moonies." I knew a married couple who were third from the top of the American Reverend Moon Cult. Knew them real well!

I have also been close with fundamentalist Christians who refuse to have social security numbers, etc.

They do not come close to what I see of Americans who "revert."

This is a huge problem and the "tolerance and understanding of Americans," will probably get a large number of us killed.

However, I do not have an answer to the problem. I see the problem clearly.

Adam

Chilling. I think the answer isn't that difficult, but I don't see it happening.

I think the answer is simple intolerance. I am intolerant of Islam, just like I'm intolerant of Scientology and other nonsense of that ilk. Intolerance is not racism, but most people can't separate the two. We must not hesitate to stand up and reject this nonsense on a consistent basis. We should not allow the goofy ninja headwear in public places or especially voting or other ID situations. What reasonable prospect does a woman have of getting a job in a western country wearing a full mask? Ugh...

I don't know what jurisdiction it was, might of even been here, but I'm not sure, but there was a controversy over the Muslim headwear issue so a few guys decided to go to vote with pumpkins stuck on their head and IIRC they had to be allowed to vote.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Religion should not trump law under almost any circumstance.

Bob,

We do disagree. And I could not disagree with you more. I hold that religion should not trump law (with respect to individual rights) under any circumstance, not under ALMOST any circumstance.

... but I will certainly not tolerate an unequal treatment of an entire gender regardless of whether they say they wish it upon themselves or not.

So what are your plans for, say, Jehovah's Witnesses?

They practice inequality. They fervently desire that inequality. And there are children involved.

I am curious to see what you think you can do to practice your intoleration and put a stop to it. Or is it just hot air on an Internet forum?

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Well, I said I was guessing. Had no idea you were an Aussie. Okay, so you embraced Islam. Can't imagine why, but let's accept it. What puzzles me then, since you were raised under circumstances where women are treated equally (and strut the beatches in bikinis) how you can at some point accept their obedient status to their husband? As for the whole stoning thing - nope, I can't even go there. Actually, if you don't mind telling us (if I've missed it, I apologize) what would compel you to make such a major conversion? Was it just reading Malcom X? Seems like a big step. If my questions are personal enough to be rude, just ignore. But you seem willing enough to share.

ginny

Sorry, I'm not quite sure how women strutting around in bikinis is linked to being equal to a man? I also don't believe that in Islam women are obligated to be obedient to their husband.

It wasn't just reading Malcolm X, it was reading through everything that I did in Islam, the Qur'an, the Seerah or biography of the Prophet, Islamic history etc.. I had questioned a lot about God since a young age because I saw quite a bit of things a child shouldn't have had to see.

[bmacwilliam]

Religion should not trump law under almost any circumstance.

Bob,

We do disagree. And I could not disagree with you more. I hold that religion should not trump law (with respect to individual rights) under any circumstance, not under ALMOST any circumstance.

I don't know Micheal, maybe there's some law that's so stupid that it would be better if ignored or "trumped" - I don't know. But I'll give you this one - OK, let's agree on this. Now though, your Shari'a position makes no sense to me.

... but I will certainly not tolerate an unequal treatment of an entire gender regardless of whether they say they wish it upon themselves or not.

So what are your plans for, say, Jehovah's Witnesses?

They practice inequality. They fervently desire that inequality. And there are children involved.

I am curious to see what you think you can do to practice your intoleration and put a stop to it. Or is it just hot air on an Internet forum?

Michael

The idea is adopt this outlook individually and to encourage and support a political party (or play a part in one) that has the courage to say something like "We will not tolerate Religious interference with law or individual rights on any level. For example: the Jehovah's Witness stupidity on blood transfusions will not be tolerated and any adults who cause or attempt to cause any harm to their children as a result of this will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

I find the question strange...

Bob

Edited March 15, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure how women strutting around in bikinis is linked to being equal to a man?

Kidding right? Just in case you're not, here's why:

Because if a man wants to, he DOES SO (think Speedo). So if a womant wants to, she should damn well be able to. In my country, men have a right to be topless, so do women. Anything else is completely unacceptable.

Bob

Edited March 15, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I find the question strange...

Bob,

My question is basically how much government control you are willing to inject on the lives of the people you don't like.

I have a strong distrust of government. Whatever I tell the government to do to others, later it will do something similar to me.

For instance, you say you want the government to not tolerate anyone who would do harm to a child. I'm fine with that. At least until we get to certain definitions. Blood transfusions? That's not exactly initiating force, but OK.

What about assault? Say spanking?

A government that would force a parent to provide a blood transfusion to his child will also want to protect that child against assault by his parents.

For example, if you are a person who believes in smacking a child on the behind for discipline as an extreme measure, don't be surprised when the government throws you in jail for doing that to your kid--who ran out into a busy street after you said not to and almost got run over. Or if you bawl out your kid for throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket, don't be surprised when the government throws you in jail for causing him psychological harm.

Once you give power to the government, it uses it. That includes the power to set definitions. And, from that point on, what the government gives, it can take away, depending on who is in power.

If you would control others with government, it will not be satisfied. It will want to control you, too.

Michael

[tjohnson]

I find the question strange...

Bob,

My question is basically how much government control you are willing to inject on the lives of the people you don't like.

I have a strong distrust of government. Whatever I tell the government to do to others, later it will do something similar to me.

For instance, you say you want the government to not tolerate anyone who would do harm to a child. I'm fine with that. At least until we get to certain definitions. Blood transfusions? That's not exactly initiating force, but OK.

What about assault? Say spanking?

A government that would force a parent to provide a blood transfusion to his child will also want to protect that child against assault by his parents.

For example, if you are a person who believes in smacking a child on the behind for discipline as an extreme measure, don't be surprised when the government throws you in jail for doing that to your kid--who ran out into a busy street after you said not to and almost got run over. Or if you bawl out your kid for throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket, don't be surprised when the government throws you in jail for causing him psychological harm.

Once you give power to the government, it uses it. That includes the power to set definitions. And, from that point on, what the government gives, it can take away, depending on who is in power.

If you would control others with government, it will not be satisfied. It will want to control you, too.

Michael

Good points Micheal, there may be millions of parents screwing up their kids as we speak but it makes no sense to expect "the government" to stop the abuse in the context of our judicial system. This doesn't mean the government cannot be involved in some degree, however. The answer is education. You can't force people to change but you may be able to educate them and then they may change themselves.

[dan2100]

Good points Micheal, there may be millions of parents screwing up their kids as we speak but it makes no sense to expect "the government" to stop the abuse in the context of our judicial system. This doesn't mean the government cannot be involved in some degree, however. The answer is education. You can't force people to change but you may be able to educate them and then they may change themselves.

I think this segues into the topic of child abuse and of bad parenting. I think much of what passes for parenting today is if not abusive at least not good parenting. But this makes it sound as if in the past things were better. The historical record, however, tends to make this time look much better than former times. And most of this change seems due to changing cultural norms.

[Selene]

Dan:

[i think this segues into the topic of child abuse and of bad parenting. I think much of what passes for parenting today is if not abusive at least not good parenting. But this makes it sound as if in the past things were better. The historical record, however, tends to make this time look much better than former times. And most of this change seems due to changing cultural norms.

That is a broad statement, could you be specific.

Three to five examples if possible.

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

I find the question strange...

Bob,

My question is basically how much government control you are willing to inject on the lives of the people you don't like.

I have a strong distrust of government. Whatever I tell the government to do to others, later it will do something similar to me.

For instance, you say you want the government to not tolerate anyone who would do harm to a child. I'm fine with that. At least until we get to certain definitions. Blood transfusions? That's not exactly initiating force, but OK.

What about assault? Say spanking?

A government that would force a parent to provide a blood transfusion to his child will also want to protect that child against assault by his parents.

For example, if you are a person who believes in smacking a child on the behind for discipline as an extreme measure, don't be surprised when the government throws you in jail for doing that to your kid--who ran out into a busy street after you said not to and almost got run over. Or if you bawl out your kid for throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket, don't be surprised when the government throws you in jail for causing him psychological harm.

Once you give power to the government, it uses it. That includes the power to set definitions. And, from that point on, what the government gives, it can take away, depending on who is in power.

If you would control others with government, it will not be satisfied. It will want to control you, too.

Michael

It is indeed the role of government to define the lines that none shall cross without exception. You don't like it? Elect another government. The same force that you might not like also keeps the religious forces at bay. The only thing worse than a powerful government is a powerful religious government.

Maybe spanking laws can be troublesome, but it's also clear that we need to protect children from more serious physical abuse. So the question is not about whether governments should control parenting or not, just how much.

Although, from an American perspective I can understand it's a little scarier. Here, there is more political choice and entire political parties have been completely destroyed after an unpopular term. American government is scarier with only two, seemingly indestructable parties.

As an aside, I find American and Canadian societies an interesting contrast. When it comes to 'forceful' things like guns and gun laws, Canada is more strict and less free. But when it comes to other personal freedoms like marijuana etc, Canada is freer. Grow ops are frowned upon, but you can smoke a joint in front of a cop in Vancouver without worry. Also, the whole Cuba travel restriction boggles the mind for a freedom-loving people.

I remember flying over Cuba on an American flight going to Jamaica or Barbados or something, and the American guy next to me (obviously a little uninformed) made a comment like "Cuba, that's a 'closed' country." when the pilot pointed it out. He was completely confused when I told him that it's only closed to him and that we go there all the time and they have excellent resorts.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

I think it's also interesting that our Islamic friend doesn't defend his position from post #88. I was interested to see how he could manipulate the work "equal".

Edited March 17, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[dan2100]

Dan:

[i think this segues into the topic of child abuse and of bad parenting. I think much of what passes for parenting today is if not abusive at least not good parenting. But this makes it sound as if in the past things were better. The historical record, however, tends to make this time look much better than former times. And most of this change seems due to changing cultural norms.

That is a broad statement, could you be specific.

Three to five examples if possible.

Adam

I agree my statement might be overbroad and certainly I didn't mean to say what reasonable or educated people -- understanding how vague "reasonable" and "educated" might be -- think of as good parenting cooks in what I'd label as abuse or at least bad parenting. Instead, I meant that I've seen abuse and bad parenting tolerated and, in some cases, praised...

Three to five examples of abuse/bad parenting? I'll give some general categories -- ones that just came to mind as I'm no expert on child abuse or on parenting, though I'm not completely ignorant of either subject -- with a few examples peppered in.

1. Parents who tell their children what to feel -- as in cases I've witnessed where a parent tells her or his child that the child doesn't mean what the child says. E.g., "You don't hate daddy! You can't hate daddy!" This seems to me to be a clear case of telling the child what to feel -- i.e., telling the child to disown her or his emotions or, at least, not to openly reveal them.

2. Parents who emotionally manipulate their children -- as in cases I've witnessed where a parent tells her or his child to do something because the child will let down someone else if the child doesn't do it. E.g., "If you don't play the cello, then the whole party will be ruined." This seems to me to be an attempt to "guilt" the child into doing something that she or he would prefer not to do. (Here, too, I think this kind of behavior has a bigger impact on children and might be classified as a form of coercion.)

3. Parents who humiliate their children in front of others -- as in cases I've witnessed where the child is humiliated in front of other children or adults. E.g., a case I witnessed where the mother made her son say something extremely humilitating in front of others. I guess this is some kind of power trip game, but who knows? Maybe it was just to confirm the parent's power over the child. (Another form of emotional coercion, in my view.)

4. Threats of physical attack: I've seen many instances of this and even recall once a group of parents saying, within earshot of their children, something along the lines of, "I brought him into this world, I can take him out of it." (As far as I know, the parent did not kill her son. But what's the point of such a threat -- which seemed to be both on display for the other parents and for the child?)

5. Actual physical abuse: I've witnessed a few of these and they range from just aggressively dragging a child around -- like a case where a small child seems to be misbehaving (why is he misbehaving? by what standard?) in a public location, his mother grabs his hand, and yanks him away. -- to more severe cases -- which I won't mention here.

[Selene]

Dan:

Several of your examples would definitely fall under my umbrella of "child" abuse.

Specifically, number four (4) and five (5).

However, this issue opens a social Pandora's Box.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would believe that you do not have children.

There is no cookie cutter approach.

There is no system that I could support that would involve any government agencies. I have dealt with "child protective" agencies in at least twenty states. I can say with complete confidence that all of those agencies should be phased out over a four (4) year period starting now.

I would rather have nothing but private and religious organizations offering those services.

Secondly, physical abuse would be criminal in nature. It would not be a social services function.

You made reference to "'...cases' you have witnessed...," was this in some professional capacity or just bad luck?

The emotional abuse, is, on the surface, apparently unresolvable. Education does not make you a better parent.

To be continued...

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

I'm looking forward to your continuation.

I have an idea why Dan thinks items 1, 2, and 3 are bad.

But I also don't see 1, 2, and 3 as comparable to 4 and 5.

I am the father of one daughter, who is now 16.

Parenting isn't easy...

Robert Campbell

[Martin Radwin]

An excellent source of information about child abuse is Alice Miller, who is probably the leading authority in the world on this subject. She is the author of 13 books, and has spent many years meticulously documenting child abuse in all of its forms. Her home page is:

http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php

Martin

[dan2100]

Dan:

Several of your examples would definitely fall under my umbrella of "child" abuse.

Specifically, number four (4) and five (5).

I'd be very suspicious of someone who thought otherwise on those, but I'm curious why you think the other examples are not abusive on some level?

However, this issue opens a social Pandora's Box.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would believe that you do not have children.

Is this the place where you tell me you have children and when they were young, you beat them regularly and they've all grown up to be happy, emotionally healthy, and successful adults?

There is no cookie cutter approach.

There is no system that I could support that would involve any government agencies. I have dealt with "child protective" agencies in at least twenty states. I can say with complete confidence that all of those agencies should be phased out over a four (4) year period starting now.

I'm not sure anyone was recommending a "cookie cutter approach," but let's turn this around. Imagine an adult being abused by another adult. Of course, there's no cookie cutter approach, but, assuming the victim doesn't want to put up with the abuse, wouldn't you say she or he should either try to alter or exit the relationship? For instance, you have a "friend" who is emotionally manipulative. You can let him know you don't like that and won't put up with and keep the option of breaking off the friendship. (You might not deliver an ultimatum as a first step here, but try to persuade him to change the bad behavior and only resort to breaking off relations when that fails.)

I would rather have nothing but private and religious organizations offering those services.

Secondly, physical abuse would be criminal in nature. It would not be a social services function.

You made reference to "'...cases' you have witnessed...," was this in some professional capacity or just bad luck?

Bad luck.

The emotional abuse, is, on the surface, apparently unresolvable. Education does not make you a better parent.

To be continued...

Adam

I'm not sure emotional abuse is unrelsolvable. One thing that can be done is to remove the child from the emotionally abusive situation. This doesn't require a state to do either. But I guess the solution in trying to make people better parents is manifold. One is getting children and adults to realize when an emotionally or physically abusive situation is happening. If the parents won't recognize it, then it might be possible for other adults to recognize it and attempt to intervene -- even if that means something like, for instance, the sister of the abusive mother basically breaking off relations and saying, "Since you're a emotionally manipulative with your children, I don't want anything more to do with you until you change." (Of course, this depends on conditions on the ground. One wouldn't want, I hope, to just break off relations and leave the children to their fates.)

Another is, I believe, getting older children -- e.g., high school and college aged -- to realize they don't have to stay in the bad situation. They might learn to confront the abusive parent and also threaten to break off relations.

[Selene]

Dan:

Two children. Did not kill either one of them, lol. However, the first time my son stepped into the batters box at the age of nine (9), cocky, crowding the plate. Now this was a solid wiffle ball, not the soft ones with the holes/slots in them.

I have great control. I said, "You're crowding my plate kid!" He dug in a little harder and crowded it more.

As he was picking himself up from the floor after getting out of the way of a very fast pitch literally right under his chin...a light went on.

Now, is that child abuse?

I can see some folks believing that that is child abuse.

I will take up your other excellent points a little later.

Adam