EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!

EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!
CLICK - GOAL - 100,000 NEW SIGNATURES! 75,000 SIGNATURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR CUOMO!

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters
CLICK! For the full motion to quash: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/hersh_v_cohen/UOJ-motiontoquashmemo.pdf

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Fifty years ago there were none of the opportunities that exist today to report abusers and find ways to deal with them.





Do you think this happened 50 years ago?


Just this morning someone asked me “Do you think this happened 50 years ago?” He was referring to the alarming accounts of sexual predators that are increasingly being followed in the media and perhaps being publicized even more so by word of mouth. Several shocking situations are currently being discussed in some local communities and even some pulpit rabbis are openly detailing colleagues or community members who should be spurned and avoided. Just look at the uproar caused when Moti Elon was called to the Torah and the controversy that created not just in that local synagogue in Katamon but globally when reports of his honorific and the reaction to it went viral. As a convicted abuser, albeit with a too light sentence, he should not have gotten the privilege.

 When he did receive the honor local protest was so loud it was heard internationally. Elon is not alone in the display of negative public reaction to him as an abuser there are others throughout Israel, in the United States, Australia and elsewhere. So the question, “Do you think this happened 50 years ago?” is a good one. But the question needs to be clarified.

Do I think there were predators 50 years ago? Certainly! I treated a women in her mid-80’s for Post-traumatic stress due to having been abused when she was a youngster. In brief she recounted that a leader of her community in Europe used to invite her over to his home for candy every Shabbat afternoon. She recounted many months of molestation. I asked her what she did about it. She gave the classic response. “I could not tell because he said he would kill me and my parents if I did tell.” I asked when it stopped. “When I started to develop he lost interest in me.” She never told anyone until starting therapy all those years later.

Did it exist 50 years ago? Not only did sexual predators exist in Eastern Europe 50 plus years ago they existed in Babylonia two thousand years ago. There are Talmudic discussions of a rabbi being exiled from his teaching position for illicit actions. So the answer to that part of the question is a definite yes.

The other component of the question, “Did you think this happened 50 years ago?” raises a completely different issue with a slightly better outcome. Fifty years ago and more there was no forum for dealing with the scourge of sexual abuse. That is one reason why it was almost never discussed. And, as a result, it was not believed.

 Even if it was believed, in many circles it was simply seen as a transitional phase that many just had to endure on their way to adulthood. In countless instances if a child or even an adult came forward to complain of being sexually abused they were at best not believed or worse, shunned.

This sort of tacit acceptance still exists in some communities. High school age boys in dormitories or younger children in poorly supervised summer camps still report that they are abused and for some, it is something that is to be expected. The good news is that there are many more opportunities to report abuse and deal with predators than ever before.
 
Unfortunately there are still some people, powerful people, who wish to continue to sweep reports of the problem under the rug. But they are being confronted not just by the media or by their constituents but by reports of their respected colleagues who have themselves been predators for decades and are now being ‘found out’, disciplined, stripped of responsibility and shunned. So the answer to this part of the question – Did you think this happened 50 years ago? Is a definite no.
 
Fifty years ago there were none of the opportunities that exist today to report abusers and find ways to deal with them.
 
 One more aspect to the question is how it is being dealt with professionally. Fifty years ago there were no professionally trained experts to deal with the traumas caused by sexual predators. Today there are. Unfortunately, there are too many individuals, some well-intentioned, others less so, with little or no training who market themselves as trauma specialists. Going forward it is important to see to it that the answer to the question, if asked 50 years from now is that a great deal of progress has been made not just in believing the abused, but also in reporting abusers to the proper authorities so that they are removed from society and that proper treatment for those needing it is available.



Read more: Do you think this happened 50 years ago? | Michael J. Salamon | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/do-you-think-this-happened-50-years-ago/#ixzz2tgvxaO1q

Monday, February 17, 2014

So, who are the psychopaths in our family?


 ...There are several well-known ones. The sex predators who, from their positions of power as clergy members or as CEO’s or administrators of schools choose victims to manipulate into sexual servitude.... 

 Street Corner Crazy - Sruli Belsky - One Of The Most Dangerous Ones For Sure!

The psychopath in our family

February 17, 2014, 4:17 am                                    

Health professionals have a diagnostic system that allows them to categorize certain individuals that they may refer to as having an Antisocial Personality disorder. People with this disorder are exploitative, repeatedly break the law, and show no signs of guilt or remorse. They are charming and witty, disregard the safety and well-being of others, lie and steal, are at turns angry and arrogant and may have substance abuse problems. Many people believe that the Antisocial Personality disorder category is interchangeable with the term psychopathy. Some believe that psychopaths are actually worse, if that is even possible. If they are indeed worse, it is because they have a complete lack of gratitude, sincerity, a general poverty of emotions; they can be vulgar and rude and have no clear positive plans for their future; in their pathological minds, there is no reason for such plans. They actually believe that they can get by on their charm, wit, and manipulative abilities. They never accept blame and they use these skills to get whatever their impulsive wants drive them toward. It could be money, sex or public attention or a combination.

 According to Eric Barker, an interactive marketing specialist, psychopaths are most likely to have jobs in the following professions: CEO, work on Wall Street, lawyer, media/television, sales, surgeon, journalism, police, and clergy. Psychopaths are most often in these particular jobs because they can get by with their lack of emotions and manipulate others from their professional positions. The professions least likely to have psychopaths are, not surprisingly, the more caring ones such as nurse, beautician, charity workers, teachers, doctors, accountants, and therapists.

Famous psychopaths are often serial murderers but most psychopaths do not kill, they simply use people and discard them when they are finished mistreating them. They are predators who know what they are doing, truly believe that they can and should continue their activities, and justify their abuse of others by blaming everyone but themselves.

 Even after they are caught and confronted, they absolutely refuse to accept responsibility for their misdeeds and are so good at their deception that others may believe them at the expense of the people that have been exploited. Moreover, the psychopath gets additional pleasure from knowing that others are further harming their victims by disbelieving them.
 
So, who are the psychopaths in our family? There are several well-known ones. The sex predators who, from their positions of power as clergy members or as CEO’s or administrators of schools choose victims to manipulate into sexual servitude. There are also several psychopaths who have made the news as embezzlers, stealing money from charities, the government, and individuals. They all deny their guilt placing blame on others, charging them with absurd actions in an attempt to distract everyone from their own sins. The problem is that too many people fall for it. That is why so much is swept under the rug. We too often buy the psychopaths stories.

 After all, they are often people in a position of power – and do not forget just how charming they can be.
 
Our family attempts to deal with these individuals by giving them the benefit of the doubt repeatedly, for years, even decades. We find it too hard to believe that they may use their own family tragedies as an excuse to raise money for their own selfish needs or seek out confused and needy teen girls (or women that come to them for counsel) to abuse. Until finally someone says enough and reports the individual to the authorities psychopaths will simply continue to employ their destructive trade.

This is where we continue to fail ourselves.

If we do not report psychopaths as soon as there is an indication of the harm they cause, if we continue to excuse their manipulations, if we continue to allow them to make excuses for the harm they are causing, we are in fact giving license to them and others who wish to emulate them the ability to harm our family.
 
         
Read more: The psychopath in our family | Michael J. Salamon | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-psychopath-in-our-family/#ixzz2tcwweZ7M

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Religion: The slippery-slope argument



A long-time UOJ reader sent this in:

I have noticed a trend in several atheistic books and documentaries, notably Root of all Evil and Religulous, where religion is portrayed as being dangerous because every practitioner of religion is part of the entire body that has at the extreme end a violent tendency. This is a slippery-slope argument, and I have come to be generally very skeptical of such arguments applied to other subject matters. Violent video games do not lead to violent behavior, gay marriage does not lead to the breakdown of the family, and universal health care does not lead to socialism. I would submit that religious behavior does not lead necessarily to violence.

There are many instances that can be cited where religious people performed violent acts in the name of religion. The crusades, witch hunts, 9/11, jihads, ethnic cleansing, etc. However, we could also point to the destructive behavior of Stalin, who was not religious, as an example where violence came from a non-religious source. When reviewed carefully, I think that the majority of violent acts can be traced to a non-religious source, but often have religion as a front. It is an easy way to cover bigoted behavior and backwards ideals. Racism, homophobia, and chauvinism can easily exist outside of religion, but if you say "gay people shouldn't marry because it makes me uncomfortable and scared," you have no argument. If you say "gay people shouldn't marry because my religion is against it," you are able to accomplish what you want.

I am contending that religion acts as a smokescreen for what people think, or perhaps as a capsule that allows a large number of ideas to be transmitted in a short period of time. I do not, however, think that religion is always bad. While many bad ideas are transmitted, I don't see how it is any different than patriotism or clannish ideas. There are many good aspects to religion. While there are awful acts that have happened in the name of god, there are also humanitarian acts that would not have happened if the believers had not believed. In many places, the church serves as a community center that allows people in an area to stay connected. In rural areas, the only source of entertainment is often the church. Activities like Vacation Bible School allow kids to use their imaginations and envision that they are in a far away place that they may never get to visit in reality.

To say that a person is enabling violence by being part of a religion that has fundamentalist extremists is small minded. This slippery-slope argument has no merit. Religion attracts a large number of people of varying levels of intelligence. If someone uses religion to cover for xenophobia or nationalism and bring a group together in a violent way, this does not equate to religion being the source of violence.

And to clarify, I am not a very religious person. I just don't think it is right for skeptical people to be advocating such a ridiculous argument. I wouldn't mind if religion disappeared, but I would like to be arguing from a reason that makes sense.

The Counter-Argument:

The argument is more like this-- if you believe that faith is the key to salvation, then you are willing to do anything that anyone can convince you god wants you to do in order to earn that salvation.

There is no way to tell a real god's directive from a fake one-- all religions think they have "the divine truth"--the infallible leader-- the right interpretation of the write text or teachings.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. It is the same as a lack of belief in Scientology or a lack of belief in demons or reincarnation or astrology. People who lack these beliefs might have beliefs that influence them, but people are not driven by the myriad of superstitions they do not believe in.

Atheists cannot be made to do things they normally wouldn't do to "prove their faith" to a supposed "divine entity". Doing what you wouldn't normally do is truly the only way you can "prove" you have faith, right? They might be coerced into doing bad things -- but nothing motivates quite like the belief that your eternity depends on you doing so.

If religion was show to positively affect morality or to keep people from doing cruel things, then perhaps it would be "dangerous" not to have it -- but this has not been demonstrated to be the case... and secular democracies are repeatedly shown to be healthier and more functional than their religious counterparts.

Religion tends to encourage a kind of primitive magical thinking, where liars are seen as holders of "higher truths" and science is denigrated as not being privy to such due to "arrogance".

And if faith is good and the "key to salvation", then extreme faith is better -- an insurance policy! It's too bad that people don't agree on what god wants. Plus, to see faith as something good or a "gift", you must find fault with those who lack it -- even if you have to make stuff up to confirm your biases. The faithful must ever be spinning so that they don't realize that their faith is as questionable as all those other faiths they dismiss.

Either there are divine truths or there are not.

 Those who imagine themselves having them have quite the vested interest in keeping this delusion alive -- and it requires a society-wide deference towards faith. If all faiths were as private as they wished Scientologists to be, then I don't think anyone would care what magical things people believe in.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

As long as the children are silent, there is no way to help them and stop the attacks on them. In addition, we must listen to children seriously and especially believe in them, believe them and give them the real feeling that we will come to their aid,”


Pass The Popcorn!

 
 

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Orthodox Jewish communities all over the world continue to struggle with the wave of child sexual abuse accusations coming forth.

 

Orthodoxy and child sexual abuse

             
Read on for article
Orthodox communities all over the world continue to struggle with the wave of child sexual abuse accusations coming forth.
 
While there are certainly challenges with any close-knit community dealing with the fallout from public accusations, one would think that once the courts have ruled, the matter would be settled. Yet in the case of Rabbi Mordechai Elon, we see plenty of recalcitrance in spite of (and perhaps in contempt of) a court verdict.

While Rabbi Elon did not receive a custodial sentence, there are many cases of Jewish white-collar criminals serving sentences in prisons, to the extent that kosher food is provided and a halachic guide for Jewish prisoners has been published. We seem to have come to grips with one category of crimes committed by Jews, but not another.

Without minimising the severity of sex abuse crimes compared to white-collar crimes, comparing our attitudes to these two categories is a useful thought experiment that can help us understand why people behave in a certain way. More importantly, it can help drill down to how we must change to reach a more appropriate approach to child sexual abuse in our communities.

Here are four distinct yet overlapping themes that can explain some of the prevalent attitudes.

1. Separation of the Tablets.

 The Ten Commandments were given as two tablets – one with laws between man and God, and the other with laws between man and man. Our Rabbis explain that the reason the tablets were equal-sized is to teach us that we must give equal weight to each category of commandments. But sadly, we don’t, and there are all too many examples of people who behave in a very pious manner toward God, but have no ethics when it comes to business. This hypocritical attitude makes it easier for people who commit crimes against others to retain their standing in the community.

2. Jews as complainants against other Jews.

 The more common white-collar crimes are fraud committed against the government or theft/embezzlement. But the complainants in child sex abuse cases are most often our own. Despite proclamations from many Rabbis that the prohibition of mesirah does not apply in these cases, there remains a cultural reluctance and discomfort when one Jew accuses another of a crime. What is often overlooked is that reporting is made even harder by the power imbalance in cases of sexual abuse – implicit in any accusation is a challenge to the authority and standing of the accused.

3. Shattering of stereotypes.

 It’s relatively easy to mitigate the risk of a white-collar criminal in the community. Firstly, people in their own community may not be a target for their criminal activities. Secondly, we can choose not to do business with them. But the crime of child sexual abuse is qualitatively so much greater as it involves such a serious breach of trust, and the victims do not have the choice to stay or walk away. It is often perpetrated by someone in a position of authority – like a parent or a teacher – relative to an innocent and vulnerable victim.

In an Orthodox community setting, where such people are highly regarded, the crime of abuse shatters the stereotype like nothing else. As mentioned, our culture is able to rationalise the pious and charitable congregant who has ripped off the government for millions of dollars – he can just be ‘a good person who does bad things’. But the notion that a teacher – who may have inspired so many students during a long career – simultaneously carries a dark side that betrays and takes advantage of the very students who trust him casts into doubt all the good he has ever done.

4. The risks of false accusations.

 The justice system moves very slowly, and is unable to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle which feeds our thirst for immediate information and immediate results and immediate judgements about the people around us.

You can blame the justice system, or you can blame the media and the blogosphere, but that won’t change anything.

This means that in between an accusation and a verdict, a community is in limbo. We’ve not debated how to treat – in a community context –people who have been accused, have been accused but not yet charged, have been charged and are awaiting trial, do not end up being charged despite accusations, or have had charges either dismissed or found not guilty at trial (which is not the same as being declared ‘innocent’). The stains of these remain within a community, and affect not just the accused but their family and friends. Clichés like ‘innocent until proven guilty’ are true in the courts, but not in the community.

The community damage that the accusation and judicial process itself does (irrespective of the outcome) is a further impediment to the reporting of these crimes.

The purpose of articulating these themes is not to make excuses; it’s to help Orthodox communities understand for themselves the path from where we are now to where we ought to be – leading the way in child protection.

 Overcoming these barriers requires leadership, open and challenging debate (including with the wider community), and change. It is not an easy path, but it is a necessary one.



 

Monday, February 10, 2014

The Fragile Boundary Between Religion and Child Abuse!



Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment
Posted on May 8, 2011 by Valerie Tarico

Valerie Tarico interviews Janet Heimlich, author of Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment. During eight years working for NPR, Heimlich never shied away from controversial topics. She won nine journalism awards, in part by doggedly exposing injustices in the death penalty and prison systems. Most recently she made her way behind another set of locked doors, into the inner sanctums of authoritarian religious communities.

Tarico: What got you focused on such a hot potato of a topic?

Heimlich: I came upon the idea rather gradually. As a first-time mother at the age of 41, I first simply became focused on children’s issues, such as compassionate parenting. I then started to notice high-profile stories in the news, such as the child sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. One week in 2008 was particularly poignant: The pope came to the U.S. and spoke publicly about the scandal for the first time; meanwhile, authorities raided a polygamous fundamentalist Mormon group in west Texas, based on concerns that members were conducting marriages between men and underage girls. So, in some ways, my discovering the issue of religious child maltreatment was a personal venture, but, in other ways, it was very similar to how I come upon any story as a journalist.

Tarico: Some people would say that religion prevents child abuse – that a supportive spiritual community or a personal relationship with a higher power, or a strong moral core is the antidote to maltreatment.

Heimlich: As I state in the book, families generally benefit from participating in religious activities. Still, we are only beginning to understand how children are harmed in certain religious communities. In my research, I found that, in these problematic cultures, the good of the faith community as a whole takes priority over members’ individual needs, and this is particularly true with how those communities view children. I should also point out that, while many people of faith point to scriptural passages that appear to glorify children, those passages are few and far between. The Bible actually says very little about children being important people—for example, children are basically ignored in the Ten Commandments—and when children are discussed in the Bible, they are often portrayed as victims of violence.

Tarico: How did you go about your research?

Heimlich: Basically, I read everything I could get my hands on regarding the mistreatment of children in religious environments. I plowed through hundreds of news articles and studies. I also interviewed dozens of adults who had been victims, as well as the few experts who have studied and written about the issue. I’m still trying to keep abreast of it all. I’d like to believe that religious child maltreatment is not as bad today as it was years ago—and to some extent, I feel that that’s true—yet new cases continue to shock me on a weekly basis.

Tarico: What was the most heartbreaking story you encountered?

Heimlich: When I was still mulling over the idea of writing this book, I kept playing devil’s advocate with myself, questioning whether religious child maltreatment was, in fact, a serious problem today. One day, I noticed a brief news blurb in the New York Times that settled the matter for me. The article explained that a little boy, a toddler, had been starved to death by a small cult in Baltimore for failing to say “amen” at mealtimes. What was particularly shocking to me was that this was not just the work of one deranged person—four adults were implicated in the crime, including the boy’s mother. Later, I would learn just how persuasive cult thinking can be; I’ve since gotten to know the dead boy’s grandmother who has gone through much heartache.

The other case involved a man named David Yoder who grew up in a conservative Amish community and today works to try to reduce child abuse in Amish communities. The first time we spoke, David told me how, when they were boys, he and a friend were mercilessly beaten by their fathers at the same time for being disobedient. The “crime” was fighting, although the boys had done no more than toss a piece of wood at each other. (This was reported by their teacher, and David’s father never got his son’s side of the story.) Again, the violence these boys endured was not delivered by a sadistic or mentally ill individual—both adults colluded to whip the boys until they apparently were close to death. But it’s not only important to call attention to child abuse in religious communities. In each case, my book examines how the belief system of those communities leads to the abuse.

Tarico: At this point, how would you describe the relationship between child abuse and religion?

Heimlich: I think the most important message of my book is this: Religion can provide children with a wonderful upbringing, but it is naïve and irresponsible to see religion only as a force for good. We’ve all seen how religion can lead people to go to war and wage terror on others. In the same way, religion can be a source for child abuse and neglect. As I often say, religion can bring children great comfort, but it can also turn their lives into a living hell. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can hope to reduce child suffering.

Tarico: Are some kinds of religious communities more prone to maltreatment than others? What are the patterns?

Heimlich: In writing Breaking Their Will, I felt it was imperative not to simply expose problems but answer the question: What makes religious experiences healthy and unhealthy for children? I came to the conclusion that children are more vulnerable to abuse and neglect if they live in religious authoritarian cultures. There are three perfect-storm factors that identify a religious culture or community as authoritarian: one, the culture has a strict, social hierarchy. Two, the culture is fearful. And three, the culture is separatist. The more intense these three factors are—the more authoritarian the culture is—the more likely children will be harmed. It’s important to note that it doesn’t matter whether the community is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim; whether people worship a deity called “God,” “Allah,” or “Jehovah”; or whether they read from the Bible, the Qur’an, or the Book of Mormon. Any religious culture has the potential to subscribe, and be subjected, to authoritarian “rule.”

Tarico: Is child maltreatment one of those areas where faith has “gotten a free pass?” – Can people can do things in the name of faith that would be considered unacceptable otherwise?

Heimlich: I can name many examples where child abuse in religious communities is more or less accepted, while the same maltreatment would never be tolerated in secular communities. Often, apologists for this abuse—even though these individuals would never call what is going on abuse—defend the actions of the faithful in the name of religious freedom. In other words, they claim that critics who advocate that children should be treated better are really attacking people’s right to practice their faith. A perfect example is faith-healing-related child deaths, where adults believe that they have a right not to take a sick child to the doctor based on their religious beliefs.

Tarico: What can people of faith do to address these problems?

Heimlich: In Breaking Their Will, I discuss a number of solutions that could help reduce religious child maltreatment. Real change is only going to come when faith communities face some truths that, traditionally, they have not faced. And it starts with recognizing that faith can both help and hurt children. I compare religion to cars, guns, and fire: They all have the potential to greatly help people, but they can also be extremely dangerous when precautions are not met. All that said, some religious leaders and other members of faith communities have taken bold stands against child maltreatment, including that which is motivated by religious belief. For example, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have traditionally opposed the corporal punishment of children; some religious leaders have turned in to authorities adults who have been accused of abusing children; and many others try to educate their communities about the need to take the problem of child abuse seriously.

Tarico: Should secular authorities engage as well – or will that only result in “circling the wagons?”

Heimlich: Children in religious authoritarian cultures greatly need the help that is offered by secular agencies, such as law enforcement and child protective services. But, for a host of reasons, adults living in those cultures are unlikely to reach out to those agencies. Many mistrust anything related to government. Some even believe such agencies work for the devil. Therefore, it is imperative for police, social workers, and government officials to reach out to faith communities that they suspect are abusing children to try to bridge what has been a very big gap of mistrust and miscommunication. I interviewed two state attorneys general who are doing just that, and they have seen improvement. One is Utah’s Mark Shurtleff who decided that fundamentalist Mormon groups would no longer be prosecuted just for practicing polygamy, unless they stand accused of abusing children. Shurtleff has also offered these groups psychological counseling. One of the counselors told me that there have been reports of child abuse, whereas before, no one would have reported abuse. Also, Oregon’s John Foote has tried to make inroads with a sect that was allowing children to get very sick and die because of members’ zealous beliefs in faith healing. Foote told me how one member of the group, a father, even called Foote to get advice on what he should do if his children got sick. Of course, Foote told the man, who did not give his name, that he should call a doctor.

Tarico: Has your book aroused detractors?

Heimlich: It’s too early to tell, since the book has just become available. (The release date is June 1.) But as I was doing my research and telling people about the subject of the book, I found that liberal believers strongly agreed that religious child maltreatment is real and a serious problem. I can’t tell you how many people have expressed relief that I wrote this book. On the other hand, conservative believers have tended to reject the notion that anything bad could come from religion. Rather, they want to only blame individuals rather than seeing the systemic problems that plague communities, generation after generation. Many apologists say that people who abuse children in a religious context are not “true” believers, so we should ignore religion as an influencing factor. My feeling is, many of those naysayers are rather ignorant about what is contained in religious texts and doctrines, as some seem to condone authoritarian parenting if not abuse. But, more importantly, is anyone truly qualified to determine what makes a “true” Christian, a “real” Jew, or a perfectly devout Muslim? I think we’d be a lot better off if we focused less on judging people’s religiosity and focused more on whether children’s needs are being met in religious environments.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt. Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

High-profile cases such as the child sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and "faith healing" deaths in certain fundamentalist Christian congregations have made the public aware that religion can sometimes mask deviant and harmful behavior. But the extent of the problem is far greater than most people realize. This revealing, disturbing, and thoroughly researched book exposes a dark side of faith that most Americans do not know exists or have ignored for a long time—religious child maltreatment. After speaking with dozens of victims, perpetrators, and experts, and reviewing a myriad of court cases and studies, the author explains how religious child maltreatment happens. She then takes an in-depth look at the many forms of child maltreatment found in religious contexts, including biblically-prescribed corporal punishment and beliefs about the necessity of "breaking the wills" of children; scaring kids into faith and other types of emotional maltreatment such as spurning, isolating, and withholding love; pedophilic abuse by religious authorities and the failure of religious organizations to support the victims and punish the perpetrators; and religiously-motivated medical neglect in cases of serious health problems. In a concluding chapter, Heimlich raises questions about children’s rights and proposes changes in societal attitudes and improved legislation to protect children from harm. While fully acknowledging that religion can be a source of great comfort, strength, and inspiration to many young people, Heimlich makes a compelling case that, regardless of one’s religious or secular orientation, maltreatment of children under the cloak of religion can never be justified and should not be tolerated.

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Their-Will-Religious-Maltreatment/dp/161614405X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1392099565&sr=1-1&keywords=breaking+their+will

Thursday, February 06, 2014

So Pathetically Late! - How Much of a Beating Does One Group Need Until Someone Dares Speak Up?

A Long Needed Discussion

The lengthy Mishpacha piece on Rabbi Moshe Bak's Project Innocent Heart ("King of Hearts," January 1 2014) and the plethora of responses it generated in these pages last week are indicative of a positive trend in our community. Child abuse is no longer a taboo subject that can never be discussed. The numerous organizations in the field addressing various aspects of the problem indicate that it has moved to the top of the communal agenda.

That itself is an achievement. For years predators have been emboldened by the unwillingness of the community to discuss, much less address, the issue of abuse. Now that the issue is being discussed they can no longer hide in the shadows confident that a conspiracy of silence surrounds the issue.

The different emphases of Project Innocent Heart and groups like Magenu and Magen also remind us of an important truth: On very few complex and important issues is there one self-evident correct response. And often times the best response is a multi-layered one that combines the different expertise of the major actors in the field.

ONE LINE DID STICK OUT in Rochel Ginsberg's genuinely path-breaking interview with Rabbi Bak: Her statement that Project Innocent Heart "does not hunt predators." No organization in the field, as far as I know, focuses on hunting predators. Rather their concerns are education of children, parents, and teachers, prevention, early intervention, and treatment.

I should emphasize that I did not for a moment read Rabbi Bak's statement as one of a lack of concern with removing predators from our communities. Elsewhere he states, "We don't care who the predator is. It [the abuse] must stop and the abuser must be punished."

But I think it is important to emphasize that removing predators from our communities is inextricably related to the issues of prevention and successful treatment of victims. As Tanchum Burton, a therapist with a great deal of experience in the treatment of predators, wrote to Mishpacha last week, predators do take into account the likelihood of being caught, especially where detection entails the likelihood of a long prison term.

One of the many crucial points Rabbi Bak made was that pedophilia is a disease -- one that seems virtually incomprehensible to those not afflicted. Like any compulsion, it is difficult to treat, and we fool ourselves if we think that mere threats will be sufficient to deter predators. I know first hand of a case where a pedophile was repeatedly warned by neighbors, given a protocol that he was to follow, and pressured to enter therapy. In addition, neighbors informed one another that they should make sure that their sons stayed well clear of him.

No one wanted to see him go to jail, and there was widespread sympathy for his family. Yet, perhaps inevitably, there were those in the neighborhood not "in the loop" – new ba'alei teshuva, non-Hebrew speakers – who never received the message to protect their children and whose children may have been more vulnerable as well. The warnings were not heeded, the protocols not followed, and the therapy abandoned, with the result of damage to more precious souls.

NO LESS CRUCIAL is a point I have made before: Prosecution of predators is a crucial component of the therapeutic treatment of their victims. (Here I'm drawing primarily on "Treatment of Victims of Childhood Psychological Abuse" in Breaking the Silence by Dr. David Pelcowitz, the Orthodox community's go-to expert on the subject.)

Another of the very important points made by Rabbi Bak is that perpetrators are far more likely to be family members or those well-known to the victim than they are to be educators. But whether the perpetrator is a family member or an authority figure bearing the communal imprimatur, the inevitable result of abuse is for the child to experience a dramatic loss of trust in those structures to whom he looked for protection, whether they be communal or familial. Those structures have failed him by not protecting him.

Mrs. Debbie Fox, who developed the "Safety Kid" program being used in many Orthodox schools today, writes that victims often express greater anger towards those who failed to protect them than towards the perpetrators themselves.

If a child who has been victimized sees his abuser still walking free in the community, his generalized sense of betrayal is magnified. Even if the abuse has stopped, each time he views the perpetrator he experiences a fresh reminder of what happened to him. The trauma remains an open wound that cannot even begin to be healed. The perpetrators presence conveys a message to the victim that the "system" – in this case the religious community in which he lives – does not really care about what happened to him.

Dr. Pelcowitz emphasizes the crucial nature of "validation" of what the child has suffered for any therapeutic intervention to be successful. In other words, the child seeks support for his feelings of having been horribly wronged. Where parents or others show a reluctance to prosecute the perpetrator – sometimes out of sympathy for the perpetrator or his family – the child will experience that reluctance as minimizing the magnitude of what he has suffered. Indeed, writes Dr. Pelcowitz, it is relatively common for parents to downplay the significance of what has taken place, perhaps out of a misplaced feeling that doing so will make it less traumatic.

Victims of abuse typically experience feelings of worthlessness and are prone to faulting themselves in some way for what happened to them. That is one reason why it is so crucial that they be treated as victims and not as accomplices. Reporting and prosecution of predators is a crucial component of validating the child's status as a victim. "[W]hen the response of the community does not actively and unambiguously support the child by validating their feelings and ensuring that they feel safe," writes Dr. Pelcowitz, "feelings of guilt and worthlessness can be significantly exacerbated.

Those feelings of worthlessness are often expressed in patterns of hopelessness and passivity. When a child sees, however, that his complaints are acted upon, he realizes that he is an actor – not just a passive victim – and his generalized feelings of helplessness are alleviated.

TRANSPARENCY, it is said, is the best disinfectant. By opening its pages to this vital discussion, Mishpacha has gone a long way to bringing closer the day when "our community is [no longer] safer for a pedophile than for a kid," in Rabbi Bak's words.

by Jonathan Rosenblum
Mishpacha Magazine

February 6, 2014
 
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1666/parashas-ki-tetzave-5774

What it takes to be a great leader - "Great Leaders See Around Corners" - "Great Leaders Dare To Be Different"...

 CLICK: http://www.ted.com/talks/roselinde_torres_what_it_takes_to_be_a_great_leader.html

"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting"

H.L. Mencken

"The Vatican said it would study the report but complained that it interfered with church teaching and religious freedom"

The Same Mantra Used By The Ultra-Orthodox Jews --- Mesirah, Rechilus, Loshon Hara...etc.


Timothy J. McNiff - the Archdiocese Superintendent of New York schools cavorting with David Zwiebel of Agudath Israel Last Week at 42 Broadway
The documented evidence in recent decades shows the finding by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child was a well-deserved judgment, particularly as Vatican officials continue to insist the many thousands of cases of child rape and abuse by clergy were a matter outside their domain and best left to the discretion of local civil authorities.
 
The United Nations panel went to the heart of the matter in rejecting the church officials’ claims that they were responsible for enforcing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child only within the geographical limits of Vatican City and not globally through their power over the Roman Catholic diocesan hierarchy.
 
In practice, this policy fed the pattern of cover-up by local church officials who sent abusers to other parishes and ducked the obligation to notify civil authorities of crimes. Since it was the Vatican that ratified the children’s rights convention, it is responsible for ensuring its provisions are followed down to the parish level, the report said.
 
The panel demanded that the Vatican, which has been overseeing abuse cases in Rome in recent years, open its archives to identify not only rogue priests but their superiors who kept the crimes hidden from criminal prosecutors. The committee’s findings, while nonbinding, should be of considerable interest to those who say church officials have not done enough to disclose all the facts and make sure stronger protections are in place. For one thing, the Vatican could order all dioceses to notify local law enforcement of abuse cases, regardless of differing national policies.
 
In responding to the panel, the Vatican said it would study the report but complained that it interfered with church teaching and religious freedom — a reference perhaps to the panel’s comments on the church’s position on abortion, contraception and gay rights. The main issue of the report, however, was the protection of children from a scourge within the church that has damaged it severely. Dozens of predatory priests were found still working with children, the panel warned.
 
In responding to sharp questioning from the committee last month, Bishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor of sexual abuse, flatly insisted: “The Holy See gets it.”
 
 That remains to be seen. The panel found some promise in the election of the “progressive” Pope Francis, but the powerful Vatican bureaucracy is far from demanding greater responsibility from diocesan leaders.
In practice, this policy fed the pattern of cover-up by local church officials who sent abusers to other parishes and ducked the obligation to notify civil authorities of crimes. Since it was the Vatican that ratified the children’s rights convention, it is responsible for ensuring its provisions are followed down to the parish level, the report said.
 
The panel demanded that the Vatican, which has been overseeing abuse cases in Rome in recent years, open its archives to identify not only rogue priests but their superiors who kept the crimes hidden from criminal prosecutors. The committee’s findings, while nonbinding, should be of considerable interest to those who say church officials have not done enough to disclose all the facts and make sure stronger protections are in place. For one thing, the Vatican could order all dioceses to notify local law enforcement of abuse cases, regardless of differing national policies.
 
In responding to the panel, the Vatican said it would study the report but complained that it interfered with church teaching and religious freedom — a reference perhaps to the panel’s comments on the church’s position on abortion, contraception and gay rights. The main issue of the report, however, was the protection of children from a scourge within the church that has damaged it severely. Dozens of predatory priests were found still working with children, the panel warned.
 
In responding to sharp questioning from the committee last month, Bishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor of sexual abuse, flatly insisted: “The Holy See gets it.” That remains to be seen. The panel found some promise in the election of the “progressive” Pope Francis, but the powerful Vatican bureaucracy is far from demanding greater responsibility from diocesan leaders.