What's So Bad About Poverty?

According to the Jeubs, what this child needs is more brothers and sisters.

The Jeubs are a Quiverfull family that appears to survive by producing books and such encouraging us all to pop out as many babies as is possible until our uteri give up or we die. And boy are they cheerful about it! Think Flanders levels of wholesome good cheer.

They have been asked, repeatedly, "what about poverty"? What about people who simply cannot afford the children they have, let alone another 10? Like all good fundys, the Jeubs just can't answer the question, or even entertain it, really. Which leads us to today's post that ponders the question What's So Bad About Poverty*?

I dunno. Let's see.

Approximately 20% of Americans live in poverty. How does it affect them?

The effects of poverty are serious. Children who grow up in poverty suffer more persistent, frequent, and severe health problems than do children who grow up under better financial circumstances.

• Many infants born into poverty have a low birth weight, which is associated with many preventable mental and physical disabilities. Not only are these poor infants more likely to be irritable or sickly, they are also more likely to die before their first birthday.

• Children raised in poverty tend to miss school more often because of illness. These children also have a much higher rate of accidents than do other children, and they are twice as likely to have impaired vision and hearing, iron deficiency anemia, and higher than normal levels of lead in the blood, which can impair brain function.

So, the Jeubs advocate that low birth weight babies likely to grow into children with serious health problems, born into families without the resources to deal with those health problems are a good thing. We should have millions more. Right now.

Levels of stress in the family have also been shown to correlate with economic circumstances. Studies during economic recessions indicate that job loss and subsequent poverty are associated with violence in families, including child and elder abuse.

Seems like something else we'd want to avoid. Unless you're a Jeub, apparently.

It wasn't difficult for me to find this information, and what I quoted was just a drop in the bucket. I do agree with the Jeubs that not having the money for expensive toys or summer camps is hardly child abuse, but consistently not having money for food and clothing and heat is a problem. A problem that will not be solved by adding more children and smiling a lot. Although I suppose buying their book would help them with poverty at least.

Seriously, look at that picture above, borrowed from a great post on Bright Nepenthe. Really look at it. That's unrestrained breeding. That's having babies despite poverty, the sort of extreme poverty we don't really have in the US. Do you really think that, if given the option of controlling fertility, the mother of that child wouldn't have trampled your ass to get some birth control? Do you really think that, if confronted by the Jeubs' cheerful declaration that poverty is no big deal, she wouldn't smack them six times, and then a seventh for good measure? The Jeubs challenge us to "love another child". Look at that child and tell me that love alone is enough.

*They seem determined to prove their poor creds, but in this same article, they cite not being able to buy a van they want as evidence of their own poverty. Cry me a river, asshats.

But You Already Knew That, I'm Sure

Attorneys for nearly 150 people who claim sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests made nearly 10,000 pages of previously sealed internal church documents public Sunday . . .

I can't say these documents reveal facts that I find surprising, but the tone of some of the letters is disturbing to say the least.

"In early August 1963, Father was placed under arrest by the civil police of the City of San Diego for violation of the State Penal Code," then-Bishop Charles F. Buddy wrote the Colombian bishop in the Diocese of Cali. "At that time, arrangements were made between this Chancery and the civil authorities of San Diego in which, if Father left the United States with the promise never to return, the charges against Father would be set aside by Civil Law."

How would solve anything? They simply moved him to a different parish, a parish that presumably also had children in it, unless Columbia was devoid of children in the mid 60s. Oh, wait, the aim of the Church wasn't to protect children, it was to protect itself.

Church files indicate he also served in Florida and Texas before arriving in the San Diego diocese, where he worked with migrant workers in the Coachella Valley about 150 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

"You have won a reputation as a zealous worker and devoted to the poor," Bishop Buddy wrote the priest in a December 1962 letter.

"On the other hand, the 'incidents' at Indio were more serious than first presented to me, especially inasmuch as the police have made a record of them. You know how word gets around, so that you be certain that the police here will be on your trail. ... It will be more prudent and more secure for you to return to your own diocese."

You know how word gets around?! That's the issue? Not that children were molested, their entire lives scarred by the actions of a monster, but word, it'll get around. And that's what's important here. Children? Unless they're in the womb, fuck 'em. Literally. Feel free. The Church will hide you. So as not to make a fuss.

Another case outlined in the files involves the Rev. Robert Nikliborc, who was sent to a psychiatric treatment facility in the 1950s after the diocese received complaints, then became director of a Roman Catholic residential facility for troubled boys called Boystown of the Desert in Banning, Calif.

I'm trying to imagine the Church's decision making process here. "Hmmm, we have a residential facility for troubled boys, who should we put in charge? Oh, I know! The known pedophile. Nothing can go wrong there!"

The papers also contain documents from the files of Rev. Anthony Rodrigue. In 1976, a group of parents at Rodrigue's parish in Heber, Calif., complained he had molested their children, according to court documents.

The priest was sent to a psychiatric facility in Massachusetts for treatment but was put back in ministry despite the recommendations of those who treated him.

Really, the only conclusion one can draw at this point, from the Church's actions, is that the Catholic Church is an organization devoted to giving pedophiles endless access to children to molest and then protect them from any consequences.

And the faithful pay for it. Lovely. They should just be honest with themselves and start giving cash to pedophiles directly. Cut out the middleman.

Hate. Filled. Heart.

(h/t to [redacted]. I don't have a facebook account.)

Apparently, the new Catholic answer to the overwhelming evidence of decades (if not centuries) of abuse, the abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent children, covered up as an institutional imperative, to the point where one can only assume that the leadership of the RCC came to the rather odd conclusion that the organization exists purely to pander to pedophiles is . . . man, that was some sentence . . . seriously, that was alliterative there at the end . . . the abuse is all made up by the Gay Agenda^tm . to punish the Church for supporting Prop 8.

Yes, that's right. Priests didn't sexually molest an entire generation of Catholic children, and religious leaders of every description don't regularly abuse their authority and their followers, it's just those dirty gays and their stranglehold on our culture. The hierarchy of the Church didn't do everything possible to keep those priests from facing repercussions, it's just the Gay Agenda^tm again.

Man, when your religious beliefs require that you view hundreds of victims of childhood sexual abuse as shills for a nonexistent agenda, you are officially fucked. You have no morals. You have no soul. You're a shell, spewing nonsense from your hate filled heart.

Good luck with that.

[name removed because i'm the better person] I believe that Bishop Eddie Long is being falsely accused of sexual abuse because of his strong public objection of the homosexual lifestyle. Let's not judge him. We don't know what proof will be given. Instead, lets pray for justice for the Bishop. I believe this to be just another attack against the children of God who speak out against evil in the world.

20 hours ago · View Feedback (5) Hide Feedback (5) · Flag

• [another asshat] likes this.

·

[conspiracy theorist] You know, it's really interesting that you mention that, because a FB friend of mine who is strongly pro-homosexual (and also admits to being a homosexual) posted a link "proving" that Bishop Long actually committed sexual abuse. That's a really good point you make there!

6 hours ago

• 
  

[asshat] You know...that they are attacking him and accusing him of this tends to lend credence to the fact that their organizations using the Catholic name ARE indeed as fake as the Bishop reported.

5 hours ago

[original name removed. i'm still the better person] Rennie, I sure hope your fb friend got his link "proving" that Bishop Long is guilty of committing sexual abuse from reliable resources. If he is guilty then he needs to pay the price . A man is considered innocent until proven guilty but I would'nt go around accusing when I know that every word that comes out of my mouth will be judged by God.

4 hours ago

• 
  

[yet another asshat] I don't remember where he got the link, but the same source that provided the "proof" also provided a news story a few months ago reporting that a high school here in Mississippi was unfair for not allowing a lesbian girl to bring her girlfriend to the prom. That much I DO remember.

You know, I have to wonder something. If one of their children came home and said that the priest molested them, would they say, "Oh, honey, stop lying for the Gay Agenda^tm."? I think not.

Also, some research shows that

More than 100 reports in the scientific and professional literature, involving more than 35,000

subjects, indicate that rapists, child molesters, incestuous parents, and sexually motivated

murderers are typically very conservative in their sexual and social values and sometimes more

religious than average—suggesting that in many cases traditional sexual morality is a

contributing factor in sexual abuse rather than a deterrent.

Yeah. It's not the Gay Agenda^tm, it's your agenda, asshats.

I've Set Five Less People on Fire Today

Suppose you were interviewing me for a job, and you discovered that in 2009, I set 398 people on fire. You know, everybody needs a hobby, mine happens to be setting people on fire. Your immediate reaction would probably be something like, "Well, we're not really looking for secretaries who set people on fire, but we'll keep your resume on file."

Now suppose that I said, "But in 2008, I set 538 people on fire. I set 36% less people on fire last year than the year before!"

Would you change your mind about hiring me? No? What if instead of setting people on fire, 398 represented the number of child molestations reported- by the Catholic Church? Would you clap your hands with joy? Give the Pope the thumbs up?

Yeah, me neither. I especially wouldn't feel all sad for them that the financial toll from child molestation is really harshing their buzz.

All told, the scandal's price tag for settlements and other costs has risen to
more than $2.7 billion, according to estimates. The numbers of cases were
expected to decline, but the financial impact remains severe, said Charles Zech,
a Villanova University economics professor. "The U.S. Catholic Church cannot
afford that right now, not the way the economy has been going, the hit taken on
diocesan investments, and to some extent parishioner contributions," Zech said.
"The church ... can't afford to be going on like this very much longer."

Well, maybe they should have thought of that when they were sheilding child molesters from justice- by transferring them to new locales with fresh victims.

The number of offenders dropped 32 percent, to 286. Most are dead, no longer in
the priesthood, removed from ministry or missing, the report said.

Define "most". Also, when you say "no longer in the priesthood", I'm guessing you don't mean "in prison, where they belong."

The report said that about one-eighth of the allegations made in 2009 were
unsubstantiated or determined to be false by the end of the year.

And who compiled the report? Oh, that's right, the Catholic Church, not all of which participated.

The picture of the scandal in religious orders, however, is incomplete because
just 159 of 219 men's religious communities took part in the survey.

But that's okay, because the Catholic Church, well, most of it, is training children to keep themselves safe.

Almost 6 million children, or 96 percent of children in Catholic schools or
religious education programs, received "safe environment" training. The training
is required under the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People,
reforms adopted by bishops in 2002 at the height of the scandal.


Two dioceses — the dioceses of Baker, Ore., and Fresno, Calif. — were
not compliant by year's end with the provision requiring the training and
documentation of it, the report said.

I imagine the training looked a little like this:

RUN, LITTLE TIMMY, RUN!

Functioning Genitalia Do Not Make You a Good Parent

abuse, child, children, homophobia, homosexual, SAHM, swope, jennifer, prop 8, marriage, tradition, gay
Jennifer Swope, a stay-at-home mother in Derry, gives us this little gem from Redefining marriage will come with costs:


What makes marriage unique among all human relationships and raises it to the level of a sacred bond is this: The union of one man and one woman is the only natural way that children are conceived. Moreover, the people best suited and motivated to take on the great task of raising a child from helpless newborn to independent adult are the mother and father whose love first brought that child into the world.

Catch that? In Jenny's world, all children are planned and conceived in love. If you can create a child, you are the best qualified person in the world to raise it. Conversely, if you can't create children, you must be a terrible person.

I don't know where Jenny's been living, but over here in the real world, none of that is true. Specifically, creating a child does not make one best qualified to raise a child. (Anyone who has experienced this first hand, raise your hand with me.)

In fact, according to the US Administration for Children & Families, in 2006, nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents, and another 6.7 percent were other relatives of the victim . . . Of the perpetrators who were parents, more than 90 percent (91.5%) were the biological parent of the victim.

Clearly, in 2006, 657,492 children would have been better off with complete strangers than with their biological parents*. (If that number doesn't make you cry, it should.) Also quite clearly, simply sharing DNA with a child does not a parent make.

Really, people, do a little research before you make assertions, m'kay?

*total number of abused children in 2006 estimated to be 905,000. So, (0.794 x 0.915) x 905,000. If I did that wrong, please let me know.

Liberals Stole My Children!

christian, christianity, religion, sound, doctrine, mills, custody, home schooling, jesus, god, religion, bible, child, abuse,
You know, or not.

Hat tip to The Panda's Thumb for finding the actual Court documents relating to this case. (If you haven't checked out The Panda's Thumb, you should. I only understand about one in three words of some of their posts, but it's still really interesting. And if you only read about what you already know, how would you learn anything new?)

The christosphere has been abuzz with stories of a woman who is losing custody of her children because she dared to homeschool them and raise them as good christians. In fact, check out this email from the Christian Anti Defamation League:

Dear Personal*,

A North Carolina Judge, Ned Magnum, has a issued an order that three homeschool children be returned to public school next year as part of a pending divorce settlement. This ruling is against the wishes of a Christian homeschooling mother Venessa Mills. Venessa has been homeschooling her children, ages 10, 11, and 12,for the past four years, taking them out of public schools in 2005. The father, Thomas Mills, who is an admitted adulterer, wants the children to go to public school. He is opposed to the children being exposed to "religious-based science curriculum."Judge Magnum must now decide between two competing sets of parental wishes. The way this is settled will set a very important legal precedence. The judge must decide what is in the best interest of the children. But under this very vague standard much havoc can be wrecked. Parental rights of homeschooling parents can be undermined as well as unintended harm done to the children.

Read more about the Judge's critic of homeschooling and why this is a threat to its future.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gary L. Cass

P.S. Many Christian families choose to homeschool their children instead of placing them in private or public schools. Yet, as seen in the case of Venessa Mills, this right might be taken away soon. Click here to read more about this case and why it is so important.

Wow! That sounds really dire, doesn't it? Interfering with peoples' religion and how they raise their children- hardly sounds American at all, does it?

Because that's not what happened.

As the Mills v. Mills Temporary Custody Order shows, the issue wasn't homeschooling at all.

Mrs. Mills joined a cult (don't get me started on the difference between religions and cults. We will be using the accepted definition of cult for the purposes of this post.) and went from what everyone, including her exhusband, described as a "loving mother" to an abusive control freak.

According to a member of the cult that has since left, the leader of the cult "directed me to develop a 'boot camp style' program to instill better manners in my children. The point of this program . . . should be to 'break' the children and to establish my authority as a parent, so that the children would obey me right away. The program that I ultimately devised, and that [the cult leader] approved, involved waking the children up in the middle of the night to do push-ups and physical exercises, and screaming at them 'boot camp style.' This program lasted approximately one month. My children were ages 11, 7 and 4 at this time. During this month of 'training', my middle child became stressed out to the point of throwing up. When I informed [the cult leader] that she was stressed out and need to lie down and rest, he told me that she did not need rest, but she needed to work and that I needed to 'break her.'"

As an example of what Mrs. Mills was doing to her own children at the behest of the cult leader, we have this testimony: "The children were in the kitchen doing dishes and Daniel asked for permission to go to the bathroom. Mrs. Mills said that Daniel had to stay and finish the dishes. Instead of going to the bathroom, Daniel urinated in his pants right there in the kitchen, soaking the floor." Daniel would have been 8 years old at that point.

This is not a religion issue or a homeschooling issue, and I find it appalling that people are defending this woman's abusive behavior in the name of defending Christianity.

Arguing with Children

ray, comfort, child, christian, christianity, jesus, god, bible, science, witness, evangelical, evangelism, stupid, psychology

I finally figured out what Ray Comfort's thought processes reminds me of: a small child's. If you have ever had an extended conversation with a child under the age of about 12, you know what I'm talking about. Children take everything uberliterally, and they have the innate ability to think up the exception to any rule in milliseconds.



What follows is the conversation that resulted from me giving my niece the "don't talk to strangers" speech:



Her: What about my teacher next year? She'll be a stranger until I know her.

Me: Of course you can talk to your teacher. And your principal. And the guidance counselor.

Her: What about the other kids?

Me: This rule is only about adults, not other kids.

Her: What about policemen? I thought I was supposed to talk to policemen if I needed help.

Me: Yes, you can talk to police officers. And firemen.

Her: What about the lady who takes your money at the store? You don't mind me talking to her.

Me: This rule doesn't apply when I'm right there.

Her: *interrupted by me*

Me: Go watch tv or something.



That's what children are like. It's how their minds work. It's also exactly how Ray Comfort's mind seems to work.



Lying is wrong (in nearly all situations). But not because the Bible says so... For example, ‘I threw a ball into the sky, and it never came down.’ Well that's a lie because we know the truth of gravity; the ball had to come back down if you merely threw it. To speak such a lie is evil because it is irrational -- it makes no sense to claim the ball never came down.” Matthew Foster*



Matthew…what say a bird flew off with the ball in its big mouth? How about a low flying plane sucked it into its engine, or lightning hit it and it disintegrated?Don’t be so quick to call the ball-throwing man a liar and “evil,” when you simply haven’t thought the issue through very thoroughly. If you do that, you are the one who is irrational.



Ray's response is very silly. (Actually, it's silly on two levels, the second being that lightning would not "disintegrate" a baseball, and you'd have to throw that ball pretty damn far for it to run into a plane.) Of course Matthew Foster is discussing the claim that gravity had no effect on the baseball in question as an analogy to the claim that evolution has had no effect on the inhabitants of the earth. We all know that. (If you don't, you don't know Ray.) To introduce silly explanations of possible fates that the baseball met that prevented its return to the ground is to engage in the sort of thinking that a 7 year old employs.



I recommend against getting your religious views from a grown man who has apparently never completed his journey to adulthood.



*I think that's the right Matthew Foster. If not, well, this Matthew Foster is worth a look, too.