Talk:Religious abuse

Validation of this article

The rationale of why a distinct article like this one should exist in Wikipedia is explained in the header:

This article is about ritualistic child abuse in real life. For the conspiracy theory involving vast networks of paedophiles abusing children, see Satanic ritual abuse

This section —:

Ritualized child abuse is also related to infanticide. Before colonization, in the Hawaiian islands all children, after the third or fourth, were strangled or buried alive. At Tahiti fathers had the right (and used it) of killing their newborn children by suffocation. The chiefs were obliged by custom to kill all their daughters. The Rajput killed a proportion of his daughters, sometimes in a very singular way. A pill of tobacco and bhang might be given to the new-born child; or it was drowned in milk; or the mother's breast was smeared with opium or the juice of the poisonous datura. A common method was to cover the child's mouth with a plaster of cow-dung, before it drew breath. In India children were thrown into the sacred river Ganges, and adoration paid to the alligators who fed on them. Where this custom prevailed in the beginning of the twentieth century as a sacrifice the male child was usually the victim.

—was taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

The article is a stub. I have informed other editors that have been interested in starting this article to expand it & correct it.

Cesar Tort 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the Columbian culture that killed children, I doubt this was considered child abuse. I am concerned that this page runs afoul of WP:V, specifically that it attempts to portray this as true - that all child killing is automatically child abuse. By our modern conception it is - killing children in Incan sacrifices was wrong and child abuse. By the Incan culture, it was right. A modern pedophile has sex with a child because they are selfishly gratifying urges that are forbidden by our culture. In ancient Mesoamerica, it was considered culturally appropriate. There's a massive difference and I'm concerned about lumping them together. WLU (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length here. —Cesar Tort 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I still say child sacrifice and child abuse are two different subjects. Lacking expertise and interest, I'm probably not going to comment or edit much. The discussion you linked to didn't address my concern that this is the projection of a modern idea (child abuse) on a completely different culture and historical period. Yes it's horrific, yes it's painful, yes if someone were to do so today we would say child abuse, but was it then? But you know all this and there's not much point in repeating : ) WLU (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, WLU, that your personal stance would be that we should not classify, say, pre-Columbian child sacrifice as homicide because within the mores of that cultures, it was not considered murder. But let's not forget the pov of the sacrificed children. According to Bernardino de Sahagún, the Aztec children cried when they were about to be sacrificed. They obviously experienced the ritual as abusive. Anyway, I've removed the category "homicide" from this page. Hope that's fair enough :) Cesar Tort 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm...my first thoughts are about WP:5P and WP:NOT#Memorial - we're an encyclopedia, not a memorial, unfortunately information trumps the terror they may have felt. And were they tears of joy for having such an integral part in the renewal of life and importance with the supernatural cause they were helping with? I'm playing Devil's advocate, obviously I think sacrificing children to make it rain is stupid and horrible, but child abuse is a thoroughly modern idea, just like the idea of the rights of animals and the lack of value in the elderly. I'm not going to AFD the page or bold-merge it back to SRA. I'm just suggesting things to think about and giving you my gut reaction. The horror of events should not influence the dispassionate recording and discussion of them in an encylcopedic manner. Get the feeling we're talking in circles? I still also feel that the split between SRA and ritualized child abuse is not a good one, but I'm not the community and obviously there was some support for it on talk:SRA so for now at least they stay separate. How about we agree that we're disagreeing, and see where the following weeks take us? I don't think either one of us will come around to the other's point of view no matter the arguments raised. WLU (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• "And were they tears of joy for having such an integral part in the renewal of life and importance with the supernatural cause they were helping with?"

Nop! In fact, most of the Aztec human sacrifice was involuntary. People in their towns were raided (like in the Apocalypto film) for sacrifice. Forget Mel Gibson. This is demonstrated in the 16 century Sahagún text. Also, you can see in Bernal Díaz's 16 century account that not only the Spaniards, but many Indians also felt that Aztec sacrifice of their own people was horrible and abusive. The feeling of abuse is not only a view of our times.

Yes: we may agree to disagree and we can only wait for other editors to comment here. I still think that merging this page with SRA is akin to merge sexual abuse to an article on claims of sexual experiments during UFO abduction.

I apologize for my bold preempt and for not waiting for a broader consensus in talk:SRA anyway. But isn't Wikipedia calling for our boldness sometimes? :)

—Cesar Tort 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wouldn't have cited WP:BOLD if I didn't think it was OK! Boldness isn't a permission thing, it's codified. On gristle-chewing the idea for a bit, I think my objection comes down to one of motivation - the motivation of the ancient Incas was totally different from the motivation of a modern child abuser - sexual gratification, power trip, frustration, definitely not following the cultural mores to (the believed) good of society. Anyway, just because I disagree doesn't make me right, there's millions of other editors on wiki and a half-dozen on the SRA alone who may have a different opinion. You were bold, let's see how it unfolds. WLU (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. But some scholars do not think that the motivation of the ancient Incas was totally different from the motivation of a modern child abuser. Since this topic is related to the legitimacy of this article, what I am about to quote is not soapboaxing.

See how psychologist Robert W. Godwin mocks the anthropologists who idealize the Capacocha child sacrifice:

“ I will cite just one out of thousands of examples, the recent discovery in the mountains of Chile of three children who had been ritually sacrificed 500 years ago [National Geographic, November 1999]. Lest you think there was anything horrifying and barbaric about this practice, these children were actually the benefactors of "the highest honor the Inca civilization could bestow: becoming a human gift to the mountain gods." In fact, one of them had even her head placed in a vice from birth, so that she would have the distinction of her skull growing "into the shape of a mountain peak," thus resembling the god to whom she would be sacrificed. Although they were buried alive, we are assured that the children "exude an air of tranquility," and that "this was not a time of terror and horror but of peace and worship." And with this fortuitous archeological find, researchers are hoping the little ones "prove as valuable to science as they were precious to their people." Here we see a fine example of complete moral inversion, in what amounts to the glorification of collective intimidation, humiliation, and thought control, with all its potential for unhinged sadism. ”

—Cesar Tort 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

None of that to me says anything about the motivation of the Incans being similar to that of a modern child abuser. The archeologists are projecting a utopian ideal the same way Godwin projects a sadistic torturer. And really, we can never know who is right or of both are 100% wrong, because that was 500 years ago in a culture completely alien to me. Yeah, I think it's horrible, but I'm not an ancient Incan. I don't think you're soapboxing BTW, I just don't find it convincing enough to change my position. Do you think this dead horse has been beaten enough?  : ) Let's leave this discussion and let the page evolve. WLU (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Incas' motivations have been discussed elsewhere, but yes: let us end this thread and the page evolve. —Cesar Tort 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• gasp* <choke> **gurrrrrgllle** REMEMBER ME AS I ONCE WAS!!! (dies) WLU (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem (as I see it) is that you (cesar)seem to be defining what is abuse, and yes by our standards they are, but at the same time I think you're going to have to find references that call these things abuse. Yes, all of these things are ghastly, horrid and <insert adjective here> but without sources that specifically mention them in the context of abuse it seems to me to be WP:OR. Remember, we want verifiability not truth WP:V. --Woland (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no: it's no OR. Believe me! Have you read the expressions of horror of Bernardino de Sahagún about the sacrifice of Indian children almost 500 years ago? Sahagún (1499-1590) has often been called "the father of modern ethnography, because his methods included using native informants to elicit information on Aztec culture from the Aztecs' point of view." I have read part of his monumental Florentine Codex and, if you like, can quote verbatim (in Spanish) those expressions of abuse. (There's an English academic translation but I don't have it.) —Cesar Tort 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because it happened does not mean that it isn't OR, again read WP:OR. Placing it in this context could constitute OR if it is not presented that way in reliable sources (i.e. people referring to it as "child abuse" in sources. That is what "verifiability not truth" means.

Again I'm not saying that these sources don't exist, what I'm saying is that they are not represented in the article. Without sources like this you are (and I know you are not doing it intentionally) representing a POV, which to some extent I personally agree with, but the goal of any editor worth his salt is to represent the information in a NPOV way. I think that this will eventually be resolved as this article matures though. --Woland (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that dead horse just twitched! Shame on you Woland! Anyway, funny aside, I'm in agreement with Woland, and I think the best thing might be to just bring this up in a WP:RFCor possibly one of the noticeboards for a more generalized comment. I think it's OR, CT does not, who is right? We need outside input methinks. WLU (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The words that Sahagún used in the XVI century about child sacrifice were not the code word "maltrato de niños": Spanish translation of "child abuse". But he and others did use the equivalent terms to what since the 20th century is called abuse or crime. Nobody can refute that both the Spaniards (and even some Indians) were appalled by child sacrifice and used the terms of their epoch and cultures to reflect their horror. Is this a semantic discussion or a substantial one? I thought the horse was already dead... Cesar Tort 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blame Woland, not me, I put the whip down yesterday. The problem for me is, we (and by that, I mean you, CT) are saying that even though the Spanish didn't call it such, this is the same thing as what we now call child abuse. In some cases, we are allowed to do so, but it must be done carefully. Bringing it up at WP:ORN would probably be the fastest solution to getting an opinion (and handy, I didn't know there was such a thing). WLU (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment, if DeMause and Psychohistory are the only sources and references we have to go on for this not being OR, I wonder if the page better belongs in Psychohistory than this one. It's a tough call - Psychohistory is a discipline (if a small, fringe-ish one) and publishes an academic journal (to a limited audience I assume), but if their work and conclusions are not accepted in the mainstream, that's probably WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE territory. Given that JPH is a single-editor oversight journal, I'm even more nervous. WLU (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not only deMause. I have also added sources to Godwin and Alice Miller. Miller is probably the foremost expert on child abuse today. —Cesar Tort 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so that addresses that concern. Thanks Cesar. WLU (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Miller is not the "foremost expert on child abuse today". I happen to like her, but she's a populist author who writes for a general audience. Her historical work on child abuse was groundbreaking in the 1980s but things have moved on.

This article appears to reflect Cesar's narrow theoretical base and little else. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote at the top of this talk page

CT deleted this from the talk page, due to its being a "rv long & irrelevant soapboax." It is relevant, it replies to his definition:

Not all agree with the definition of Satanic Ritual Abuse at the top of the talk page: " For the conspiracy theory involving vast networks of paedophiles abusing children, see Satanic ritual abuse" It may be long, but necessary to clarify the data. Abuse truth (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some different definitions of SRA.

two peer-reviewed sources

"Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse" Part One: "Possible Judeo-Christian Influences." S. Kent - Religion 23 no.3 (July, 1993): 229-241.

"A plausible explanation for satanic abuse accounts that is not explored by critics is that deviant: either develop satanic rituals from material that exists in easily accesible mainstream religious texts, or sanctify their violence by framing it within passages in otherwise normative scriptures." p. 231

"Multiple Personality Disorder and :Satanic Ritual Abuse: the Issue Of Credibility" Dissociation, Vol. III, No. 1 March 1990 S. VanBenschoten

Ritual abuse may or may not have satanic overtones. However, many of the allegations of ritual abuse which have surfaced over the present decade specifically implicate allegiance to or worship of Satan as the basis for accomplishing or justifying the ceremonial activities performed. Although the prevalence of satanic ritual abuse is not known, its involvement in a variety of social contexts and diverse belief systems has been reported. Highly secretive and rigidly structured cults have been implicated, as well as groups exploiting day care centers, groups disguised as traditional religious structures, families (including rnultigenerational involvement), small self-styled adolescent groups, child pornography and drug rings, and individuals acting either independently or within loosely knit groups (Brown, 1986: Gallant, 1986, 1988; Gould, 1986, 1987; Kahaner, 1988; Young, 1989).

two skeptical sources

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sra.htm

Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) can be defined as the psychological, sexual, and/or physical assault forced on an unwilling human victim, and committed by one or more Satanists according to a prescribed ritual, the primary aim of which is to fulfill the need to worship the Christian devil, Satan.

by Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent

Behavioral Science Unit

National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime

1992 FBI Report --Satanic Ritual Abuse By Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent Behavioral Science Unit National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime

What is "Ritual" Child Abuse?

I cannot define "ritual child abuse" precisely and prefer not to use the term. I am frequently forced to use it (as throughout this discussion) so that people will have some idea what I am discussing. Use of the term, however, is confusing, misleading, and counterproductive. The newer term "satanic ritual abuse" (abbreviated "SRA") is even worse. Certain observations, however, are important for investigative understanding. Most people today use the term to refer to abuse of children that is part of some evil spiritual belief system, which almost by definition must be satanic.

Satanic Ritual Abuse: The Evidence Surfaces

By Daniel Ryder, CCDC, LSW

http://home.mchsi.com/~ftio/ra-evidence-surfaces.htm

The report was written by supervisory special agent Kenneth Lanning. It has gone out to law enforcement agencies around the country; and has been cited consistently throughout the media the last several years. The report states, in regards to "organized" Satanic ritual abuse homicide (that is, two or more Satanic cult members conspiring to commit murder Abuse truth (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote looks fine now. WLU (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POV fork

This page is Cesar's vanity piece and it needs to be integrated with psychohistory, or deleted.

It's been created by Cesar as a POV fork from SRA, in order to shift content from that article into this one, thus stripping the SRA article of substantiated cases of ritualistic abuse, and enabling Cesar to entrench his own POV in the SRA article. See [here]:

Once Ritualized child abuse is created as a legitimate WP article, there would be no reason to impede us the moving of the legitimate cases of child ritual abuse to the moved article. We can even do it before the SRA page is unlocked. This strategy would comply with WP’s due weight policy by vindicating the majority view in history and sociology that the subjects are distinct (RCA is about actual forensic evidence, while SRA is about a 1980s and 90’s moral panic more analogous with witch-hunts than with ritual crime). —Cesar Tort 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On the same page, he accuses me of meatpuppetry and so on. His creation of this article is just another example of his refusal to AGF in relation to editors who disagree with him. It wouldn't be such a problem if this article actually had any merit, but he's just taken material from the article on psychohistory, and, in his own words, added "some content totally unrelated to deMause’s theories to justify the moving".

The result is a vanity piece that rests on a few theorists (deMause and Miller) whose theoretical influence is limited to the 1980s. The content is bizarre and I've never come across anything like it before - it is a clear example of synthesis, original research and undue weight, and his conduct fails to AGF. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• "The content is bizarre and I've never come across anything like it before."

This means that you haven't read Lloyd deMause or the psycho-historians. Have you?

As to the POV issue, the real POV article today is Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), about which you say in your basically single account userpage:

“ At the moment, I'm advocating for the reform of the Satanic Ritual Abuse article on Wikipedia. Whilst the role of ritualistic activity in organised child sexual abuse is not clear, we know that it does occur, and that it is related to the most severe forms of child maltreatment and sexual exploitation. For years, the SRA article has instead suggested that most people with a history of SRA are fantasists, and the professionals who support them are malicious and corrupt. In my experience as a researcher, nothing could be further from the truth. ”

If the SRA article is locked right now it's precisely because credulous editors have tried to push nonsense like Michelle Remembers in an encyclopedic article.

On the other hand, this article merely recounts well-known historical, ethnological and anthropological facts that nobody disputes —hardly POV.

We will see in the forthcoming months how these two articles evolve, especially the SRA article, about which I doubt it will be unlocked for too much time if the credulous pov-pushers persist with their unreliable sources.

And please, don't bring in the discussion from that hotly controversial talk page into this one. Even without User:Eleland's idea to split the SRA article, an article on ritualistic child abuse was needed. Another editor totally unrelated with the SRA controversy could very well have started it.

—Cesar Tort 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I quite like Lloyd deMause and Alice Miller, but that's beside the point. Psychohistory isn't exactly the canonical approach to the history of child abuse. This page is just a collection of your particular historical interests and pet theories. As such, it constitutes original research by synthesis. If you want to write your own psychohistorical account of ritualistic child abuse, then you have your own website.

The people who keep re-posting Michelle Remembers are the "sceptical" editors. I've actually deleted reference to it a few times because I think it's an example of undue weight, but it's been reposted time and again by "sceptics". It's a bad source and they use it to poison the well.

I agree that an article on ritualistic child abuse was needed, but you are posting bad content, and the term "ritualized" is a strange one. Do a google/scholar search and you'll find it's used very rarely in comparison to "ritual abuse" or "ritualistic abuse". --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• "...and the term "ritualized" is a strange one."

My native language is not English. I just picked up the title I saw in red somewhere in talk SRA. —Cesar Tort 06:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

• "no, it's not reliable for events in 1911 either" —User:P4k in edit summary

User:P4k has removed a section that is mostly taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. I wonder what does he mean? Isn't the Encyclopædia Britannica a convenient source?

—Cesar Tort 05:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely convenient. If you think that something written a fucking century ago can be reliable then I don't really know what to say to you. Have you read the excerpt from their entry on "negros" that's quoted here? What makes you think the passage you like is any more likely to be accurate? Britain was a colonial power in India in 1911, ffs.P4k (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for quite such a hostile attitude to it. Yes, many of the entries are now outdated, particually sections on race etc. However, that is not a reason to dismiss the entire encyclopaedia. I would, however, agree that much of the antropological research done for the encyclopaedia can be at worst extremely biased, and will show 'natives' as savages. However, the encyclopedia can also be surprisingly accurate in some areas. It is also an extremely interesting source, particually about what may now be defunct rituals, since they are unlikely to be reported now. It should, of course, be noted that there was always a certain bias that would show the colonisers as a civilising force, who removed the barbarism from societies, so do be careful to mention the age and possible bias of the 1911 edition when quoting.

I should also point out that age is not a reason to dismiss a source. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, ie 149 years ago. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J.StuartClarke. For example, I have seen one of the sentences that P4k removed, "In India children were thrown into the sacred river Ganges, and adoration paid to the alligators who fed on them" in other sources. And the other practices could be found in other sources as well. (Unfortunately, I am moving now and all my books are kept in boxes.) If the rephrased paragraph that P4k removed doesn't use outdated words like "negroes", etc., I don't see any objection why not including it. Many early 20th century rituals are gone by now. A 1911 source is important because it mentions anthropological facts of a century ago. —Cesar Tort 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If no substantial reason is given as to why should the entire sourced section be removed, re-adding it is inevitable. —Cesar Tort 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1911 is a long time ago, and if the information is actually true, then there should be more updated sources - that is a reason to if not reject, then at least seek out better sources. Incidentally, though Origins of Species is indeed accurate to a point, the modern synthesis has largely supplanted it, and no-one cites Darwin except as a historical source. Darwin's original observations have been largely verified and augmented, in more recent sources. As should the 1911 text. Also, Darwin was writing of common biological themes, objectively verifiable, uniting all life. Big difference between that and the historical observation and interpretation of cultural practices by a society that saw an entire country as little more than a giant cow to be milked.

One further thing I will venture - a good faith attempt to add information is not a bad thing, even if it not done to the highest of standards. I don't know a) how much Cesar will learn from the initial reply and b) how inclined he will be to listen. Cesar, if your books are in boxes, you may have to wait until you are unpacked, but fortunately wikipedia isn't going away. If you're really attached to your previous addition, pull up the old version out of the history and put it on a sub page pending better sources (or, pull it out of the history when you've got better ones). WLU (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do know that Origin of Species is now combined with modern genetic research. I was simply pointing out that age alone is not a reason to dismiss a source. Perhaps Newton's theory of gravity would be a better one...? Anyway, either way I do feel that we must try and keep this converstaion rather more civil than telling people that their sources are fucking anything... --J.StuartClarke (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's theory of general and special relativity? :P It's not that age automatically disqualifies sources, but there must be more updated sources than EB circa 1911. I do agree 100% that the way this was conveyed could have been better, and would probably have had more of an impact on disqualifying the source. Most times when you see a source that is over (picking a random-esque number) 50 years old, it's to say when something was introduced or first described, it's not to add information because often it has been surpassed. I think this is what P4K was getting at (that and racism was kinda omnipresent back then, so sources about cultural practices are more suspect). There's better sources, I'm comfortable moving on from there. WLU (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that much more up to date sources are needed, although it might well be that some of the alledged practices have stopped since 1911. However, I would side with you in saying that we can't use the 1911 edition in isolation, particually given the anthropological nature of the article. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ok: I added different sources. I also re-added the EB reference but along with a 1999 reference on the same subject. Hope this looks better... Cesar Tort 05:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This all seems rather overly civilised. Shouldn't someone be shouted at by now...? Thanks for that anyway. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>We prefer icy politeness and keep our gratuitous bashing to e-mail. I've tripped off several work-based filters now. Note that Hrafn is going at the page now, which should be interesting. WLU (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro WLU. ;) I think this quote from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is informative:

Contemporaneous beliefs about race and ethnicity often prevailed in the Encyclopedia's articles, to the detriment of their factual accuracy.

Is it really a WP:RS on such issues? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am terrified and comforted by your presence Hrafn. I think I just wet myself, but oddly I'm OK with it.

EB has been excised completely, hasn't it? Isn't this thread academic as the EB 1911 has been replaced by more recent sources for the same point? I think CT was the only one interested in using EB, and I think he's been shouted down shown the light. WLU (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "more recent source" is any better. Discovering Archeology appears to be a defunct "vividly illustrated bimonthly magazine". It seems to be quite frequently cited by fringe sources, so I would be more happy if we got a quote (here on talk) of the original paragraph that makes the point in question, to ensure that it hasn't been misrepresented, particularly as the article itself is about Incas not India. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...a news report might also be an adequate source for something like this depending on the paper. Here is a non-shark related article that fits the bill of RCA, but really that's the same territory as the list of allegations from SRA. Another point to consider is that the raw statement is that kids were thrown to sharks. Was it for ritual reasons? Was it for population control? Random psychopathy? There needs to be more context that justifies it being a ritual action. Is it an aspect of puja? Is it Hindu, Muslim, Dravidian, Zoroastrian or Sikh rituals? CT just removed the section - I think this is a good call until a more fleshed out version can be put on the page. Perhaps add it back when you're unpacked CT. WLU (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

restoring link

I have restored the SRA link to the see also section as per policy, "see also section provides a bulleted list of blue internal links to related Wikipedia articles." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exorcisms

How about adding a section about modern day exorcisms on children? Currently, this is mentioned in Exorcism#Exorcism-related_deaths, but I think there needs to be some mention about this here as well. This article only talks about the past and ones that take place amongst native peoples, but there is no mention about it happening in contemporary Western culture. Forest Path (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is only a "start" article. Please add that info. —Cesar Tort 01:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For now, I just added a link to Exorcism. Forest Path (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Other ritual actions section

Does no-one else consider circumcision to be religious abuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.189.32 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by this line: Artificial deformation of the skull predate written history and date back to Neanderthal times.

What is meant by "Neanderthal times" exactly? Does it mean the Middle Paleolithic or is it saying that Neanderthals practiced body modification? If what is meant is the middle paleolithic (or some other time period) then it should be more precise. I don't think that its referring to body modification by Neanderthals, simply because after reading a lot on them I've never come across this. --Woland (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP is no source for WP. However, what do you think of this? —Cesar Tort 21:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll try to check out/find some sources. It seems rather unlikely though as I've never seen that referenced in the literature, but I could be wrong.--Woland (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be...Here is a reference for it.

Erik Trinkaus

Current Anthropology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 198-199--Woland (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving the page?

I have added this section in Satanic ritual abuse:

Some feminist critics of the SRA diagnoses maintained that, in the course of purging or cleansing evil, the panic of the 1980s and 90s obscured real child abuse issues. Unlike the "multiple victims, multiple perps" which characterizes many allegations of SRA, the parental, intrafamilial sexual abuse, which is much part of this world, had thus "been robbed of larger significance." The National Center for Abuse and Neglect had to elaborate a different term, "religious abuse", to explain the evidence of exorcisms, poisonings and drownings of children in non-satanic religious settings to avoid confusion with SRA.

Google gets 595,000 hits in "religious abuse". I wonder therefore if moving this page is in order? That would broaden the scope of what could be included in the article. Thoughts?

—Cesar Tort 18:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've little to offer here. I like the addition to SRA but don't know what kind of currency RCA carries in any circles. Religious abuse does seem to merit it's own article (deaths due to exorcisms, controversy over blood and organ donation) but I don't know what should go where. I still think that the page is somewhat dubious, but I can't decide either way deletion or merger. WLU (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved it. However, the whole article needs to be rewritten to include abuse of adults. Lots of info should be added due to the larger the scope of the moved page. —Cesar Tort 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

References

dubious topic

I am adding {{synthesis}} to this, because it doesn't appear to be about a clearly defined topic. We have

• child sacrifice (any religiously motivated infanticide)
• initiation rite (in tribal societies, most of these are pretty violent and would easily classify as "abuse" by modern standards)
• ritual abuse, also known as "Satanic Ritual Abuse", a conspiracy of evil cults abusing children.

googling the term,

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I find it seems to refer to the act of abusing people by attempting to hurt their religous feelings rather than to physical abuse motivated by religion. E.g., "religious abuse" appears in news stories such as

"Terror suspects held at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are being subjected to routine religious humiliation, some detainees claim."

"Jerusalem's Christian community has demanded that Jewish leaders and the Israeli government take action against what they claim is growing harassment of their clergy by religious Jews."

"Harassment of Scotland's Muslims in the wake of the US terror attacks will not be tolerated, a senior politician has warned."

and even the abuse of a religion (as in, Islam is being abused by Islamist terrorism)

"the Taliban's vile misuse of religion"

but also

"The Supreme Court [of Nepal] will rule on whether a tradition of using children as living goddesses is a crime."

dab (𒁳) 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could unwatch these articles. I created it just to mark the difference between ritual abuse and satanic ritual abuse. Input or advice from other editors would be much appreciated. —Cesar Tort 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that "Satanic Ritual Abuse" and "Ritual Abuse" are two terms used for the same phenomenon, and are not equivalent to "religious abuse". The question here must be what, if anything, is meant by the term "religious abuse". I suggest this should be a disambiguation page between ritual abuse (the child abuse panic in the US), initiation rites or their "abusive" aspects, and religious humiliation or harassment as in the case of Guantanamo, with a link to religious violence as the article treating religion and any sort of physical abuse in general. Actual human sacrifice probably doesn't belong here, since I believe it isn't common include homicide in the term "physical abuse" ("physical abuse" mostly implies that the victim survives). dab (𒁳) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious: have you read the section "Definitions" in SRA article? RA is SRA only in a limited set of definition. —Cesar Tort 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

as defined by whom? Conspiracy theorists, or literature actually describing the phenomenon? Look, this is about a panic about imagined crimes. Actual "ritual abuse" such as female genital cutting doesn't fall under "RA" since it's real and documented. It's an actual ritual practiced by an actual culture. I am not sure if it makes sense to divide conspiracy theorists by whether they believe they are denouncing actual "satanic" or merely "occult" practices, but that's for the SRA article to decide and has nothing to do with "religious abuse", the topic of this article. dab (𒁳) 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cesar, I've just looked at your user page, in the light of which I would like to rephrase the above as "never mind". dab (𒁳) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternate use of the term

I would say that to split this page into only two topics is myopic. Religious abuse is vastly psychological, which is hugely more topical and common than human sacrifice and satanic ritual abuse. My opinion, and it has been affirmed in my own small academic circles, is that religious abuse is inflicted on people when they are punished for veering from the allowed doctrine of their fellow congregationalists and religious organizations. Please see my senior thesis at www.religioustrauma.com for the complete story, which, although quite extreme, peeks into a mind-set of fundamentalism that is becoming all too common and very psychologically dangerous. The "religion" presented in the thesis is only one of a growing number of religions that dominate and exert mind-control tactics. I once had a therapist who tried to clump me in with the satanic ritual abuse category since that is the only type of cult that seems to get attention, at least with uninformed therapists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.173.96 (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually came to this article for the first time looking for the above mentioned topic, thinking "Hmm, I wonder of if Wikipedia covers this." It would appear not, just yet at least.

To clarify, I am referring to a specific use of the term "religious abuse" that is used in the psychotherapeutic environment. I've having a hard time articulating a precise definition, so help me out if you get what I'm talking about. It's when a person or persons use religious teachings or doctrines, or their position as an authority within that faith, to emotionally and psychiatrically harm another person of the same or similar faith. The victim is harmed because the believe the perpetrator. I hate to pick on Christianity, but the best example I can think of is with a fanatic parent telling a little 4 year old they are evil and will burn in hell forever because they nicked a cookie from the jar. The child believes the parent and is stricken with fear and becomes severely depressed, believing them have been damned.

This is a relatively new and somewhat delicate topic in psychology, given the obvious difficulty with judging the practices of religious from a secular point of view. I want to expand this article to cover this facet.Legitimus (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the fbi can stop that and the police too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.65.225 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Any "religion" that would ever condone telling any child "they are evil" or "and will burn in hell forever" under any circumstance practices child abuse and is a cult. There are fanatics in all walks of life. There is little doubt about Hitler's fanaticism. He ushered children into a forced service to further an agenda to his political cause.

A problem with a perceived direction of this discussion began with, "I hate to pick on Christianity". The first section on this talk page begins, "This article is about ritualistic child abuse in real life", and I object to any hint of anti-religious content or tone.

Definitions:

• Religion: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" which could be any person or any sect.
• Fanatic: "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics."
• Christian: "a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity."
• Religious: "pious, indicates a spirit of reverence toward God."

The above example starts out, "a fanatic", and renders anything after that inconsequential. This kind of example could be used with anyone, regardless of any affiliation, political, religious, or satanic. If anyone knows (verifiable) of a religious order that espouses such a cult teaching I would like to know of it. Other than that, let's not "pick" on anything without justification.

• The section "Psychological abuse" needs a lot of work, to be rewritten to reflect meaning from the references, and more references.

The reference uses words like "warped claims", "abusive spiritual leaders", "twisted" "questionable dogma", "spiritually abusive leaders of aberrant churches", and "unbiblical submission". The first sentence of the section, " One specific meaning of the term "religious abuse" refers to psychological harm or manipulation inflicted on a person by using teachings or doctrines of that person’s religion. ", makes it appear as anti-religious.

There are no doubt instances when over-zealous religious leaders and groups support teachings, intentional or by "misguided interpretation" that can be psychologically damaging. To state that a church that teaches "exclusive possession of the way of salvation, which no other church can possibly have" reference #2 as grounds for being aberrant or a cult, is a point of view not supported by a staggering number of "Christians" as far back as the written word began. If a strong Christian discipline and teaching genuine acts of devotion, "deeply crushes the mind and spirit of the church member", then the United States was founded on, and by, a lot of psychologically crushed individuals. It would also mean that a majority of the people of the United States is psychologically damaged, and while maybe true, following a christian belief is not the cause and any assertion of this would be anti-Christian.

I do not agree with 67.160.173.96 that a definition of religious abuse would be abuse "inflicted on people when they are punished for veering from the allowed doctrine of their fellow congregationalists and religious organizations.". A person that belongs to any organization would have to abide by the rules of that organization. Common sense would negate this statement (no disrespect to his/her academic credentials as he/she has a thesis) as not logical. Although the article Religious fanaticism needs work the lead is certainly relevant as a definition of abuse would depend on "the one doing the evaluation". I may nominate this article for a "POV-check". Otr500 (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

First thing is this thread is more than 2 years old. The IP users are likely long gone and I had almost forgotten about this article.

But to the subject at hand, this is the very reason why this specific matter is so very delicate in psychiatric practice. It is a tightrope act with the danger of falling into two opposing danger zones: Richard Dawkins-style "angry atheism" who think all religion is bad and harms people, and a flimsy moral-relativism that excuses all religious-based behaviors as outside anyone's right to judge no matter how obviously abusive they are. In practice this is a very case-by-case matter that has to be assessed carefully based on the symptoms and the establishment of a causal relationship for that specific individual.

One of the major stumbling blocks I had was finding sources. If I were allowed to make edits based on my personal expertise and experience with this type of patient situation it might have come out different. I used what I could find.Legitimus (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and it is almost 2 1/2 years old. Your reply was one answer I needed, that the article was not abandoned. I agree that it is a tight rope and will offer that psychiatry and Christianity are the night and day of life. I would imagine we all have experiences in life (I certainly do) that are profound one way or the other.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, possibly angry, and very militantly anti-religious, but in my opinion his own evidence proves he can not possibly be a true or "possitive" atheist, even though he attempts to write as such. He is an expert in his field but all of his grand knowledge is lost when he attempts to delve into that which is beyond his capability such as psychology. Although against religion he does not disbelieve in gods, extensively argues against a belief in a "creator God", but has written "Why there almost certainly is no God". He "wonders how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it.", on one hand, and agrees with the writings that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.", on the other. He believes in reciprocal altruism but in evolutionary biology this advances the notion that all organisms can think or rationalize. This gives me the opinion that he is a very well educated mixed up person and apparently an agnostic atheist. He believes that teaching religion and creationism to a child is religious abuse and I believe that to argue against the possibility of creation, teach that it is a disillusion and should never be taught to a child, is mental as well as educational abuse. As an "organism" that can think humans normally have the ability to draw their own conclusions. If both sides are presented equally then we as people can draw our own conclusion as to what we believe.

To teach a child in a belief one has is a form of reciprocal altruism. It is a natural process of life that logically can not be denied. There is certainly a point when cognitive development dictates that religious and spiritual enlightenment as well as secular or intellectual enlightenment should be taught.

To proscribe that creationism is false or proscribe that evolution is false is a presentation of only one view. To ascribe that there is no other logical thinking or dogma, but the one of a particular person, and all other ideologies should be eschewed, is flawed. Concerning the beliefs of others Ariane Sherine has stated, "...the freedom to hold them is more important than the beliefs themselves.". If she came upon this thinking on her own then she is certainly self "enlightened".

In the "Psychological abuse" section the opening sentence states, " One specific meaning of the term "religious abuse" refers to psychological harm or manipulation inflicted on a person by using teachings or doctrines of that person’s religion. " This explicitly informs a reader that religious teachings are harmful and specifically is "religious abuse". The last sentence includes, " Professionals must be careful to respect the religious beliefs of others they may not understand themselves, but at the same time must be prepared to take action or direct treatment when a specific behavior is or was clearly causing harm to the individual. ". We go from "all religious teachings" are harmful on the one hand to a specific behavior that is harmful on the other.

I believe this article has a place on Wikipedia, with Jonestown as proof, needs a lot of work, and at a point you expressed interest in expanding it. This would be a good thing with balance. Otr500 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think my only point of confusion is with regards to your objection to that opening sentence: I personally do not read that sentence and come away with an impression that religious teachings are harmful. I see it as saying that there exists a type of psychological harm in which religious teachings are used against a person, but teachings in and of themselves are not harmful. But I acknowledge it could be clearer. Do you have a suggested opening line?Legitimus (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I can just say that opinions differ and I am glad you do not feel that teachings (religious) are harmful. Opening with "psychological harm" and "religious abuse" can, without a doubt, lend bias to the following "teachings or doctrines of that person’s religion" without "something" added for clarification. Otr500 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been otherwise tied up and unable to work on this but will in the near future. I would also like to call notice to the fact that the article does not even have an actual lead section, per policies and guidelines, and specifically the lead section of the manual of style. As it stands there is a term definition section that is in place of the lead. Surely those that have been working on the article can produce a proper lead section as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Otr500 (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I worked on the lead some but it needs more work. It does look better than the list type content that was there. Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Witchcraft-based child abuse: Action plan launched

This may be of use, it was posted on Talk:Satanic ritual abuse, but is not of use to that article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A very good topic. I think it would be good to add a section on the matter this this article.Legitimus (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Portions of this article written like an atheist opinion piece

The whole section on "psychological abuse against children" is linked to a Richard Dawkins interview. (that is broken link anyways.) Can we rely on a fanatical Atheist priest for an objective assessment here? Other areas concerning religious upbringing in general, just sound like common prattling rants of neo-atheists. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

While we are using ad hominems: Are you aware that your comment sounds as if it must come out of a crypto-theocracy founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists who were too extreme to fit into their home continent?

The content of the section seems fine to me and not extreme at all. But I agree that the sourcing is badly broken. I am not an expert. The only remotely relevant source I am aware of is Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians", which discusses among other things that right-wing authoritarian followers tend to turn their children into right-wing authoritarian followers. That's very roughly the same thing as described in this section. But Altemeyer doesn't go into much detail for this mechanism and he doesn't focus specifically on the religious forms of right-wing authoritarianism. Hans Adler 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I agree that merging Spiritual abuse and Religious abuse would be a good thing. They seem to be pretty much the same thing, and clearly notable. I'm not sure how a person could tell if a given incident is spiritual abuse or religious abuse. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Bigotry

Abuse is found in many groups, both religious and secular. Wikipedia has no place for ugly bigotry. Wikipedia is not the place to spread personal prejudices.Jimjilin (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There were many more: mutilating and drinking blood etc.

Here is a sample Christian one from 1930s in Poland

https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muraszkowcy#

See the photos here: http://retropress.pl/tajny-detektyw/nowy-rasputin/

-》 Let us add them.

Zezen (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Afraid I can't read Polish. Are there specific works you want to cite? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

On mobile,so I could quickly find these only:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=eCKbw8QuhEkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=muraszkowcy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNoLr53vTeAhVLGCwKHc4LAyEQ6AEIGzAE#v=onepage&q=muraszko&f=false

https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Russian_Judaizing_Heresy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302552227_BUDIVNICI_NOVOGO_ERUSALIMU_IVAN_MURASKO_I_MURASKIVCI_fragment Zezen (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Prominent examples missing 2

Kali cult in 21 c, and many more.

Sample cases: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,322673,00.html

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/ahmedabad/Boy-sacrificed-to-appease-goddess/articleshow/41900118.cms -> why are these missing here? Zezen (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annamariefdaly (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Annamariefdaly (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No mention of stolen generations nor boarding schools

I think it's absurd that a page titled "religious abuse" does not include anything about American Indian boarding schools nor Stolen generations. Wallby (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a more general article, but if you want to propose a section about institutional abuse of minorities, go for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)