Feed on Posts or Comments 25 April 2018

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 15 Mar 2010 12:21 am

Christians: why is there so much child abuse in your religion?

The following video demonstrates a strange side of Christianity – its tendency toward child abuse. Why would Christians have this tendency?

Christians, what say you?


The statistics on spanking – “The US department of Health & Human services reports 142,000 children are seriously injured from Corporal punishment every year in this country”

From the book: Why Spanking Doesn’t Work by Dr. Michael J. Marshall:

The use of corporal punishment also extracts a huge toll on our children’s health. In the most comprehensive report to date on child abuse, a fifteen-member board of experts, appointed by the department of Health and Human Services, compiled statistics on child abuse deaths and injuries. It was commissioned by the United States Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. The 248-page report, entitled, “A national shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States” concluded that over 2,000 children are killed each year by their caretakers (Cavalier, 1995). It found that “more preschool children are killed by their parents than die from falls, choking, suffocation, drowning or fires (p.34).” In addition, 18,000 children are permanently disabled and another 142,000 are seriously injured by their caretakers each year. These are shocking statistics.

16 Responses to “Christians: why is there so much child abuse in your religion?”

  1. on 17 Mar 2010 at 2:29 pm 1.Ben said …

    I reviewed the statistics. There was no correlation between Christians and the 142,000 who were injured.

    Unfortunately, neither side in the conflict trusts the other sides studies and data. So we are probably going to have to sit back and simply observe the long-term effects of the reduction in corporal punishment which has been going on for the last 25-30 years.

    This brings to mind the famous Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”

  2. on 17 Mar 2010 at 4:17 pm 2.Observer said …

    Where were the statistics for review? The link states that low socio-economic people are more likely to beat their children. Fundamentalists and evangelicals are disproportionately from lower socio-economic classes (almost by definition). Where are the numbers?

  3. on 17 Mar 2010 at 9:08 pm 3.Horatio said …

    “The link states that low socio-economic people are more likely to beat their children.”

    Welfare mommas who are disproportionally Democrat? They are the beaters? The entitled class taking out their frustration on their kids.

  4. on 17 Mar 2010 at 9:46 pm 4.Horatio said …

    “Fundamentalists and evangelicals are disproportionately from lower socio-economic classes”

    Where are those numbers?

  5. on 17 Mar 2010 at 11:38 pm 5.Observer said …

    Horatio (again)-

    Welfare mommas… don’t know any. Are they political? It would seem that the state of affairs in the US would indicate they are not particularly political, or at least not particularly effective.

    The link did not say “welfare mommas”, and I assume that you intend the traditionally racist overtone of the phrase “welfare mommas”, are the ones beating their children. I was picturing white folks with bad teeth, Confederate flags, cammo, pick-up trucks, gun-racks, that sort thing. It would be interesting to know the answer.

    “Fundamentalists and evangelicals are disproportionately from lower socio-economic classes”

    On the fundagelical (my word) thing, I thought that was a truth held to be self-evident. Again, Ben, if you are lurking, where is the data? I am quite capable of calculating my own statistics.

  6. on 17 Mar 2010 at 11:40 pm 6.Observer said …


    On your capability to “review statistics”, do you know lognormal from “bowl of logs”?

  7. on 17 Mar 2010 at 11:42 pm 7.Observer said …

    Oh, and the “famous Chinese curse” is nearly as famous as a misattribution.

  8. on 18 Mar 2010 at 2:32 pm 8.Rostam said …

    “Fundamentalists and evangelicals are disproportionately from lower socio-economic classes”

    How do these racist bigots explain guys like:

    Truett Cathy
    Kurt Warner
    George foreman
    Gary Busey
    Tim Tebow
    Roger Staubach
    Tony Dungy

    and the list just goes on and on! Well, you can’t expect honest assessments from guys with such a bigoted racist view of other people.

    Since blacks make up a proportionally large number of the lower socio-economic class, he must be claiming blacks beat their kids. Further more, since they are by a large proportion supporters of the DNC, we can further assume those in the DNC beat their kids more than the rest of the population.

  9. on 18 Mar 2010 at 4:07 pm 9.Ben said …

    “I reviewed the statistics. There was no correlation between Christians and the 142,000 who were injured.”


    That was the point. The study doesn’t exist. If it does, they forgot to publish it on the DHHS website. If it does exist, I feel certain “Christian” is not a category. (lol)
    This thread is just another attempt to skew truth to fit ideology. I understand, ideology is a strong drug and must be promoted with every fiber of the being. I feel the calling to expose ideologues.

  10. on 19 Mar 2010 at 11:23 pm 10.Anonymous said …

    Kids need to be beat to death

  11. on 20 Mar 2010 at 2:10 am 11.Lou said …

    “Fundamentalists and evangelicals are disproportionately from lower socio-economic classes”

    What??? Did Observer just pull this, uh, um, fact out of his butt? Got to be right op there with the ignorant statements ever to be posted on a blog.

  12. on 20 Mar 2010 at 3:44 pm 12.Observer said …

    Socioeconomic is defined as meaning more than the money one has in their bank account. Typically, high socioeconomic class includes a high level of education and or culture. Otherwise, rappers such P. Diddy would be considered of a high socio-economic class, as would professional athletes, etc. out of hand would be considered “high socioeconomic class”.

    As with almost all definitions pertaining to groups of people, they tend to cover a distribution, and as such there are usually not strict boundaries.

    Truett Cathy is an interesting case. He has a high-school education, and is from a Southern Baptist family. He therefore is not from a high socio-economic class. He is still a Southern Baptist. Those are decidedly low social and intellectual class indicators. He made his considerable fortune selling fast food. Promoting fast food is evil, but as the so-called Southern “aristocrats” were slavers, that makes them evil too, but they were not from a low socio-economic class. So Cathy has a billion plus dollars, is unlettered, and practices primitive literalist Christianity. The only thing that could put him into a high social class is money, but that would still require quite a bit of coaching and polishing on his part. Tough call. A billion dollars has a ton of potential.

    Anyway, it still sort of astonishing to me that the statement

    “Fundamentalists and evangelicals are disproportionately from lower socio-economic classes”

    produced any sort of disagreement. It is essentially a tautology.

  13. on 20 Mar 2010 at 11:05 pm 13.Burebista said …

    The verity that one only has a HS education does not inevitably signify they are not well educated. Some men such as Lincoln were well educated on their own. Therefore level of education is immaterial.

    Fast food is evil? There is another foolhardy statement. You never had a chick-fil-a sandwich have you? What a pity.

    Observer doubtless views his status as one of a high socioeconomic class. From his comments on a man he has never met, he is far removed from such stateliness. Cathy is tops in respect, generosity and philanthropy. Education and money indicates little concerning an individual. Class and respect cannot be taught or bought and those who do not possess these qualities, they are the most primitive of human beings.

  14. on 22 Mar 2010 at 1:20 am 14.Observer said …


    Consider me a Dalit who cleans urinals at an internet bar in Mumbai.

    “The verity that one only has a HS education does not inevitably signify they are not well educated.” One’s level of education is something along the lines of a fact; it does not fall into a category of philosophical or transcendent “truth”. (Google Orwell Politics English Language for a great essay on writing most folks here would benefit from. I wish I could live up to those standards too. ) Nevertheless, it is a component of socioeconomic class. That is just the definition sec. Lincoln was indeed largely self-taught, and mightily well educated despite his shortcomings.

    I think you are making my point on socioeconomic class at any rate. Lincoln is a perfect example of someone who was from a very low socioeconomic class, and thanks to the liberal and egalitarian United States, was able to achieve greatness. This was one of the things that made the Southerners hate Lincoln, as well as his rather decent notion that slavery was an evil to be eradicated. He was counter to their ridiculous adoration for the half-wits, bastards, and other hard-luck stories comprising their so-called aristocracy who could point to relatives with a title in England, Scotland, or Ireland. The point is that Lincoln’s greatness was not that he made some dough, he did great things.

    Selling junk food to the obese hardly constitutes great deeds. Unlike Ray Kroc, Cathy did not invent an industry either good or bad. He evidently makes chicken sandwiches folks like, and has a penchant for misspelling ( see rapper references above ). He has made a ton of dough, and as best I can tell has given away around $23MM to charity. That is considerably less than 2%. That is a pretty damned poor showing.

    I also read Focus on the Family has been a recipient of his largess (I wonder if he launders it through some snake-handling Hallelujah Baptist?). If that is true, Cathy is an enemy of basic decency, and is among the lowest filth on the planet.

    I do not think I said anything particularly negative about Cathy before, and this time only if he is still tied up with the Focus on the Family garbage.

  15. on 22 Mar 2010 at 8:32 pm 15.Observer said …

    Look at this. By comparison, Cathy is a skin-flint putzer-


  16. on 22 Mar 2010 at 10:24 pm 16.Burebista said …

    I would never consider you to be Mumbian dalit. For a moment I thought you typed dolt. I’m sure you are a part of the upper crust. Besides, that would lower me to your sort of standards. But yes, we are all impressed you could work that into a blog post. Bravo!

    Good point on Cathy however. If it is on web and even more impressively on wiki it must be true. Well done my urinal boy!

    You have a lot of time on your hands there, eh?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply