On Orgies, Bisexuality, James Dobson, and Evangelicals

Last updated on: April 19, 2015 at 2:28 pm By Libby Anne

Later in the program, Dobson took issue with pastors “who are compassionate toward those who have attractions to same-sex individuals.”

“I would like them to think, just for a moment, about ‘LGBT,'” Dobson said. “The ‘B’ stand for bisexual! That’s orgies! Are you really going to support this?”

I guess I feel like if you’re going to get up on your platform and speak on an issue, you should do your research first. Or maybe I’m just old fashioned like that.

Being bisexual does not make one any more likely to engage in orgies than people who are straight. (Dobson does know straight people sometimes have orgies, right?) All being bisexual means is that one is sexually attracted to members of more than one sex. It does not mean one is not monogamous.

Bisexual individuals often end up in a weird bind when it comes to public conceptions of them. They’re either thought to be polyamorous, or they’re erased entirely—after all, a bisexual person currently with someone of their own sex is viewed by the public as gay, and a bisexual person currently with someone of the opposite sex is viewed by the public as straight. So I don’t want to come down on just Dobson here—lots of people misunderstand what it means to be bisexual.

However.

Evangelicals frequently talk about the “gay lifestyle” as a dangerous and foreign thing, ignoring the fact that gay people tend to lead lives not all that unlike straight people. Evangelicals also stereotype transgender individuals as pedophiles and molesters, ignoring the fact that transgender individuals are far more likely to have violence exercised against them than they are to exercise violence against others. So it’s not just bisexuality we’re talking about here.

Evangelicals’ understanding of LGBTQ individuals is less about reality and more about crafting an image that fits within their worldview. In evangelical parlance, homosexuality, orgies, and pedophilia—these things all naturally go together. This is why evangelicals believe that gay people are naturally promiscuous and that transgender individuals are likely to abuse children in public restrooms. This image they have crafted of LGBTQ individuals may not resemble the reality, but it does allow them to fit the issue snugly into their belief system.

As more people have openly gay individuals in their lives, evangelicals are increasingly faced with a choice. They must either deny the lived experience of the (often few) LGBTQ individuals in their lives, or they must reject the image they have been given of LGBTQ individuals by their pastors or other evangelical leaders as false. If they do the latter, they have to find a way to adjust their belief system to account for this new understanding of LGBTQ individuals. And there are evangelicals today who are doing this, though I don’t have percentages. The past of least resistance, however, is to simply deny, deny, deny, and hold tight to the unquestioned belief system, and that is what most seem to be doing, at least for the moment. It’s certainly what Dobson is doing, though I’m unsure whether he knows any LGBTQ individuals.

The problem here isn’t just religion, though it certainly is that when it comes to LGBTQ issues specifically. When we look more broadly, it’s ideology in general that is the problem. Any time people set out to fit the world around them into a specific preconceived ideology, without a willingness to also look critically at that ideology, they will end up twisting pieces to fit them into their preexisting puzzle. Religion may be the most obvious example of this, but there are others, too. Think of communists or libertarians, for instance. Any time an individuals proclaims an ideology supreme, they run the risk of finding themselves twisting pieces to fit them into it rather than being willing to adjust the ideology when things don’t fit.

When I began to walk away from evangelicalism, one of the most amazing things about it was being able to simply accept the hugeness and wideness of the world without having to fit every little thing into my evangelical ideology. I loved being able to just let difference be. It was a relief to be able to accept that that person who didn’t go to church or ascribe to evangelical beliefs probably really was as happy as she looked, rather than having to find some way to believe that she was actually internally miserable. And so forth. Sure, I eventually had to find ways to piece the world around me together into a new understanding, but the new understanding I have crafted is flexible and by definition willing to give.

The best thing we can do for evangelical friends or family members is to live lives that don’t fit their preconceived notions and present information that also doesn’t fit. For example, about a year ago when I was with my family they made some offhand comment about boycotting a business that supported LGBTQ adoption, and I mentioned, also sort of offhand, that I have a friend who is raising a little boy with her partner, and that they’re great mothers. There was no response to this comment and I wasn’t expecting one. What they do with contrary data points is up to them. They may twist them to fit their ideology today, but perhaps they’ll niggle in the back of their mind and build up and build up until they realize it is the ideology they must adjust rather than the information.

I’ll be honest—I don’t hold up much hope for James Dobson changing his beliefs about LGBTQ individuals. But for evangelicals of my generation, especially, I have some hope.

How We Disagree

Last updated on: March 19, 2015 at 10:16 am By Libby Anne

In a conversation on an earlier post about my comment policy, one reader said this:

I think a huge reason for the anger that you can encounter here is that this place is pretty united by going against beliefs that cause harm. So when there’s someone who doesn’t agree, people get mad because their beliefs are harming others, so fuck them! They’re clearly a horrible person, so we don’t give a fuck how we treat them!

But I used to believe a lot of those things, and while they were horrible beliefs, I still wasn’t a horrible person. It’s not like I believed those things because I wanted to cause people harm.

And I feel like the only attitude accepted around here for people who aren’t sure what they believe is, “Thank you for explaining that, I felt this way a minute ago, but now I have completely changed my mind and wholeheartedly agree with you.” There’s no understanding that it really can take time when you’re dealing with views you’ve been immersed in your entire life.

I feel like this is incredibly important, and not just for those commenting here.

After Leelah Alcorn’s death, I wrote that as an evangelical I would have placed the blame for her death at the feet of those who told her that being transgender was natural, okay, and something she couldn’t change. I would have argued that what Leelah needed was help struggling against her confusion, not people telling her to give up and embrace a lifestyle that would bring her only pain. After all, 40% of transgender individuals attempt suicide, I would have pointed out! It’s a destructive lifestyle! What Leelah needed, I would have said, was help accepting the male identity she was born with. (And of course, I wouldn’t have used female pronouns, or, likely, the name Leelah.)

Many of my readers probably recoiled just reading this. Frankly, it felt gross to write. I, and many of my readers, know that the transgender suicide rate is not a result of something intrinsic to being trans, but rather a result of, well, people like my former self telling them that their lifestyle is immoral and they need to just accept the gender they were born with—and much, much worse. But as an evangelical, I did not know that. I inhabited a sort of echo chamber.

My point is that I embraced a belief—that transgender individuals should fight their dysphoria rather than transitioning—that I now believe causes great harm, but I did so because I thought my current belief—that transgender individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions about transitioning and that both trans and nonbinary individuals should be accepted on their own terms—was the one that caused harm. You may read that and think “how the blazes could anyone think that causes harm,” but honestly, my current position on what causes harm would have seemed just as outrageous to me ten years ago.

Yes, there are some people who embrace beliefs they know harm others, but I find that is very rare. This is true even for something like abortion—while there may be some who oppose abortion out of hatred for women who dare have sex, the evangelicals I grew up amongst honestly believed that abortion was just as harmful to women as it was to their their fetuses. I remember hearing about “post-abortion trauma syndrome,” and hearing that what those women really needed was a place to go until they gave birth, and then they could choose adoption if they didn’t want to raise the resulting child. Our signs read “Adoption: The Loving Option.” I and those around me truly believed this was best for women, not just for their fetuses. Again, are there some who oppose abortion because they hate women, or women who have sex? Probably, but I never encountered any.

Now let’s look at a totally different issue: vaccines. Anti-vaxxers hold a belief that causes a great deal of harm. Measles rates have come back up as a direct result of increasing numbers of parents opting their children out of the MMR vaccine. But anti-vaxxers, by and large, are not out there saying “Mwahahaha, now more children will get measles and DIE!” Um, no. In fact, they think that we are the ones whose beliefs are causing harm—that vaccines cause autism and other conditions, and that the dangers of diseases like measles are overblown. In other words, they think the risk for the vaccine is greater than the risk of children not getting the vaccine. They see themselves as whistleblowers and protectors of children.

Speaking of whistleblowers, there’s also the whole anti-GMO movement. Genetically modified food is safe and good for the environment and humanity—it decreases the amount of pesticides farmers need to use and increases the amount of food available to the world’s population. Organic farming is not sustainable, and studies have found that organic produce is not actually better than other produce. I believe the anti-GMO movement is causing real harm, but they believe GMOs are causing real harm, causing conditions like asthma or allergies.

How about the social safety net? As an evangelical, I believed government programs to help the poor actually trapped them into a cycle of dependency. I honestly believed that if we ended those programs, those same people would be able to work their way out of poverty. I argued that private charity could help fill in while needed, providing assistance that had strings attached and thus ensuring that it was a “hand up” rather than a “hand out.” I now look at my former self as incredibly naive, but that’s my point—I was espousing beliefs about the poor and our social safety net that I now consider harmful, but at the time I honestly thought the position I hold today was harmful. I didn’t have any malice toward the poor. And while I’m sure there are some who oppose welfare and what have you out of malice toward the poor, I’m just as sure that there are many others who are as naive and misinformed as I was.

I could go on all day, but I’ll curtail my list of examples here. When you find yourself with a disagreement with someone, either in person or here on my blog or elsewhere, it is best to assume that they aren’t willfully believing things they know cause harm. Most people don’t do that. It is better to assume that they disagree with your contention that their beliefs cause harm. I have found that the best tact is to clarify their position to make sure you understand it, and then attempt to explain your own view—why you think their beliefs cause harm.

But there’s something else to to bear in mind here—discussions over disagreements should not go one way. When I was in college, my now-husband Sean was instrumental to getting me to rethink my position on creation and evolution. Why? Because he didn’t just talk, he also listened. He signaled that he was willing to change his own views should I be able to persuade him, based on the evidence, that I was right. It is very rarely a good idea to approach any conversation in a one-sided way—i.e., “You are wrong, let me explain to you that you are wrong.” People rarely respond well to that.

And honestly, we should want to approach disagreements with a willingness to change our own position should the evidence and arguments merit it. I’ve changed my mind on enough things to feel that an openness to being wrong should be an important part of life. Do I think I’m right on, say, GMOs not being harmful? Yes, I do. But it’s technically possible I could be wrong, but if I’m closed to even considering the possibility of being wrong I’ll have no way of ever knowing if I am.

When we assume that our own positions are both right and self-evident, it is easy to demonize even the slightest dissent, and I find that unfortunate. I grew up in an environment where questioning the party line meant immediately getting the side eye, and disagreeing in even small areas meant being ostracized. I’d really rather not repeat that.

We need to accept that someone we are arguing with may not change their mind—and that that does not necessarily make them a horrible person. Sometimes ideas just need time to percolate—it’s rare for people to change a deeply-held position with a snap of the fingers. And even if the person remains unconvinced, remember that, on this blog at least, they are not your only audience—other readers will see your arguments as well, and some may shift their position in response without ever actually weighing in. If someone refuses to change their position even after you’ve explained that it causes harm, it is more likely that they disagree with your contention that their position causes harm than that they are saying “Yay, I love hurting people!”

Disagreeing with people on deeply-held beliefs and ideas is difficult, especially when each side believes the other is causing harm, and I get that. But I have to believe there is a better way to do so than I’ve seen in too many internet discussions, whether here or elsewhere.

Note: I’m not saying anyone is obligated to discuss any disagreement with anyone else. Instead, I’m addressing what takes place when two people voluntarily choose to engage in discussion on a topic on which they disagree. In other words, this is about what happens in that discussion space rather than about how we respond to daily microaggressions.

I know someone whose son almost died of whooping cough when he was two months old, because the disease went through their anti-vaxxing community like wildfire. But he finds he can’t talk with anti-vaxxers about the issue, because it is too painful for him—it makes him too angry. And he is under no obligation to do so! He has every right to say “anti-vaxxing kills children, fuck off,” and then walk away. Having never had a child spend a month in the hospital as the result of a vaccine-preventible disease, I feel much more able and willing to debate an anti-vaxxer.

When Demons Are Real

Last updated on: March 15, 2015 at 11:11 pm By Libby Anne

I’m sure by now nearly every one of you has heard about Arkansas state representative Justin Harris’s decision to “rehome” his two adopted daughters with a man who then sexually abused them. Most of you have probably heard, too, about the impetus for Justin’s decision—that he believed the girls were possessed by demons. Justin called in specialists to conduct an exorcism and kept the girls separated because he believed they could communicate telepathically.

I might very well think this story to bizarre to be true if I didn’t know first hand how strongly entrenched demons and spiritual warfare are within evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity.

I grew up hearing stories about demons. A friend of my parents’ told a story at Bible study about confronting a demon in the hall in her home at night. She explained that her teenage daughter had been listening to secular music, and that that must have let the demon in. I checked out books by Frank Peretti at the church library, and read hair-raising stories about demonic activity. I went to a dramatic reading of C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters with my parents.

My parents were very clear about demons. They told us that the world around us was locked in conflict between demons and angels. This conflict was going on everywhere around us, unseen.

I struggled with fear of demons my entire childhood. I would lay awake in bed with my eyes clenched shut, afraid that if I opened them I would see a demon at the foot of my bed—demons, after all, could make themselves visible to the human eye if they so chose. I was afraid I would invite a demon to attack me by thinking the wrong thoughts, and fearfully tried to keep my mind away from anything that might seem like an invitation.

My parents always told me that the name of Jesus would protect me from demons. All I had to do was evoke that name, and the demons would flee. But I read in the Bible about a case where a demon beat up some men even though they evoked the name of Jesus, because the men weren’t “true” believers. This frightened me, as I also suffered from salvation anxiety—I was so concerned that I might not actually be saved that I prayed the sinner’s prayer continually throughout much of my childhood.

On a recent visit home, my mother told a story about praying demons out of my youngest sister when she had a migraine. She said my sister vomited violently as the demons left, and then the migraine was gone.

But let’s bring this back around to Justin Harris. My parents believed demonic possession was real, and not just a thing of the past. I was taught that much of what we call mental illness today is in fact demonic possession. It seems Justin Harris believed this too, and interpreted his adopted daughters’ very normal adjustment troubles as demonic possession.

My daughter Sally has a friend who was adopted out of foster care when she was three and her sister was four. Both girls have had adjustment issues, but their adoptive parents expected that and have showered them with the love, attention, and careful guidance they need. It breaks my heart to think that natural adjustment issues—often the result of past trauma—could be interpreted as demonic possession.

I am reminded of this exchange from the Doctor Who episode Curse of the Black Spot:

Captain Avery: The ship is cursed!

The Doctor: Yeah, right. Cursed. It’s big with humans. It means bad things are happening but you can’t be bothered to find an explanation.

I’m honestly not sure what the solution is. Belief in demons as real and active entities is integral to fundamentalism and evangelicalism. But then, my mother once told me that she did believe some forms of depression could be caused by actual chemical imbalances, so perhaps there is some wiggle room—perhaps it is possible to educate individuals like Justin Harris on the psychological explanations behind behavior like that of his adopted daughters. Perhaps, returning to Doctor Who, having an explanation will dispel the need to invoke demons.

Although actually, I’m not sure much could have been done for Justin Harris himself. Anyone willing to threaten a department’s funding to push an adoption through and then give his adoptive children away under the table without so much as a background check is probably too far gone.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Preamble

Last updated on: March 15, 2015 at 11:22 pm By Libby Anne

You may have heard that the only countries in the entire world who have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) are the U.S., Somalia, and South Sudan. While this was once true, Somalia ratified the treaty in January of this year, and South Sudan’s government has begun the ratification process. In other words, out of all of the countries in the world, the U.S. stands alone in refusing to ratify the CRC.

The CRC was adopted by the UN in 1989, and quickly ratified by countries across the world. The goal was to move from viewing children as dependents in need of care to viewing them as individuals with rights of their own. You can learn more about the treaty, and view informational videos, here.

So, why hasn’t the U.S. ratified the CRC? I suspect there are a lot of reasons, among them popular opposition to the UN and an unwillingness to see children as individuals with rights rather than simply dependents under parental control. I’ve written before about Michael Farris and his organization, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), and their opposition to the CRC, but I even Farris isn’t powerful enough to block the treaty on his own.

I realized, a few months ago, that while I support the CRC I hadn’t actually read the treaty for myself, and I suspect this is true for many of my readers as well. To remedy this, I am going to post a section of the CRC each week, with some short commentary for reading and discussion. This week we look at the preamble.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,

Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,

Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,

Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,

Recalling the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, Recognizing that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration,

Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child, Recognizing the importance of international co-operation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, in particular in the developing countries,

Have agreed as follows:

Next week we’ll turn to the first provisions.

In my experience, much of the opposition to the CRC in the U.S. is based in concern that the Convention is anti-family. In that vein, I found this paragraph above particularly interesting:

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

At least in its rhetoric, the CRC is entirely pro-family. Of course, I imagine Farris would say this is all pretty language dressing up a bitter pill to swallow.

Next week we’ll turn to the treaty’s first provisions.

Yet More Tired Arguments against Marriage Equality

Last updated on: February 6, 2015 at 11:23 am By Libby Anne

I recently ran upon an article on the Witherspoon Institute by writer Katy Faust titled Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent. In it the author argues against extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. I want to address two specific points she makes.

I identify with the instinct of those children to be protective of their gay parent. In fact, I’ve done it myself. I remember how many times I repeated my speech: “I’m so happy that my parents got divorced so that I could know all of you wonderful women.” I quaffed the praise and savored the accolades. The women in my mother’s circle swooned at my maturity, my worldliness. I said it over and over, and with every refrain my performance improved. It was what all the adults in my life wanted to hear. I could have been the public service announcement for gay parenting.

I cringe when I think of it now, because it was a lie. My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner and friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and my dad loving me under the same roof. This should come as no surprise to anyone who is willing to remove the politically correct lens that we all seem to have over our eyes.

Okay, so I’m wondering something now. Is Faust unaware that straight people get divorced too? Does she not know that there are plenty of children of straight divorced parents out there who would be willing to do anything to have their parents under one roof? As a friend of mine stated after reading this article, “My straight parents got divorced, does that mean I should be against straight marriage?”

Furthermore, while Faust isn’t clear about the reasons for her parents’ divorce, unless her mother was bisexual her mother’s position as a lesbian woman married to a straight man almost certainly played a role. In a society where gay people are accepted as readily as straight people—and extending marriage to gay people is part of that acceptance—gay and lesbian individuals will be less likely to enter into marriages with individuals of the opposite gender to begin with, thus cutting down on the number of couples who divorce for reasons like hers.

What I don’t understand when reading articles like this (and I’ve read them before) is why this isn’t blatantly obvious. The author wasn’t harmed by marriage equality—her experience occurred before same-sex marriage was legal, after all. Marriage equality extends traditional marriage benefits to same-sex relationships, but there is nothing stopping lesbian women married to straight men from divorcing and finding a female partner even without marriage equality—indeed, this has already been happening for decades.

It’s also worth noting that as lesbian and gay individuals become more and more accepted in today’s society and fewer of them feel the need to enter relationships with the opposite sex, fewer children of gay and lesbian couples will be in Faust’s situation. In other words, more and more children of gay and lesbian individuals will come into their families through sperm donors, surrogacy, and adoption rather than through disrupted straight relationships.

I want to touch on one other part of Faust’s article:

Now that I am a parent, I see clearly the beautiful differences my husband and I bring to our family. I see the wholeness and health that my children receive because they have both of their parents living with and loving them. I see how important the role of their father is and how irreplaceable I am as their mother. We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right.

This argument that men and women by default fill complementary roles assumes that all women or all men are interchangeable. In other words, it ignores that there are large differences among women and among men.

My next-in-age sister and I are very close, and in many ways very complimentary. She is more of a feelings person while my tendency is to be more logical. She can see beauty for beauty’s sake while I am more interested in what is practical. She sees money as something to be spent while I see it as something to be saved—she reminds me to loosen up and I encourage her to spend wisely.

The idea that all women are somehow complimentary to all men, but that women cannot be complementary to women or men to men is ludicrous. It’s not just ludicrous, it’s downright insulting.

I think about my female friends who have children, and I am struck by how incredibly different from each other as mothers. I think about my husband and my male friends with children, and once again, I am struck by how different they all are. In our home, I am the more relaxed parent and Sean is the firmer parent. In my parents’ home growing up, the opposite was true (you couldn’t get away with anything with mom, but dad might just be open to persuasion).

Can we stop putting people in boxes and then making assumptions about them? Can we accept people as people first? Is that so much to ask?

It strikes me as extremely relevant Faust became an evangelical Christian in high school and is now married to a pastor. She even recommends Mark Driscoll’s book on sex in marriage! In other words, it is likely that Faust’s belief that children need a mother and a father—and that the two are complementary—comes not so much from her own personal experience as from her religious beliefs. And if she beliefs what Driscoll teaches, she also believes that husbands are to lead and wives are to submit.

To me it appears that some evangelicals are realizing that religious objections to marriage equality aren’t going to cut it, and so are dressing up objections that are at heart religious as wholly secular. I’m curious to hear from children of lesbian or gay parents who don’t not have religious objections to homosexuality but still oppose marriage equality, but then, I have yet to meet any.

How HSLDA Talks About Abuse

Last updated on: January 29, 2015 at 11:42 am By Libby Anne

In 2012, HSLDA opposed a New Jersey bill that would have allowed the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) to determine whether children under their “care, supervision, or custody” should be prohibited from homeschool. The main reason this bill was introduced is that children who are homeschooled are not seen regularly by mandatory reporters in the way children who attend school are, and therefore children who are vulnerable or at risk of abuse may benefit from being in school. A perusal of the cases at Homeschooling’s Invisible Children drives this home—when abusive parents homeschool, their relative isolation can mean both that the abuse is worse and that it is harder for the child to find help.

Interestingly, HSLDA acknowledges in this piece that there are cases where it would make sense for DFYS to be able to make this sort of determination. They simply argue that the bill as written was “far too broad,” and as usual, they make no practical suggestions for improving it. They also argue that the bill was “probably unnecessary” because if a judge takes jurisdiction of a child as “usually happens in serious cases,” that judge “probably already has the power to make decisions about the child’s education.” I find the use of their word “probably” concerning. They’re lawyers, shouldn’t they know for sure?

But I’m getting off track here, because it’s not really HSLDA’s opposition to this bill that I want to talk about. Instead, I want to talk about the way HSLDA talks about abuse in their treatment of the bill. Mainly, it’s this paragraph I’m concerned with:

Children can be placed under DYFS care, custody or supervision for many reasons totally unconnected with education. For example—say a child gets in a fight at the local park, and a judge gives DYFS supervision of the child. It makes no sense whatsoever for DYFS to have power to veto the famiy’s homeschool program and force the child into public school. Or what if a baby gets sick and a judge decides the family waited too long to go to the emergency room, and places all the family’s other kids under DYFS supervision. There is no reason DYFS should have the power to force them to stop homeschooling. Or say a family is remodelling and the house is so messy that a judge gives DYFS supervision of the kids. Is there any reason to force them to stop homeschooling? Obviously not. OR say a family with 6 biological children adopts a 10-year old orphan from Russia who starts making up bizarre stories about maltreatment, and a judge gives DYFS supervision over all kids as a result. There is absolutely no reason for DYFS to have power to force all the kids into public school.

Wow. That’s a lot.

Frankly, if a judge places an entire family of children under DYFS supervision because of how long the family waited to take a sick child to the ER, you better believe the delay must have been significant. And if a judge orders a family of children under DYFS supervision because of how messy or dangerous a family’s house was, it’s not just dishes in the sink or outlets without safety plugs we’re talking about. And if a child gets into a fight at the park, and it’s bad enough for a judge to put the child under DYFS supervision as a result, there is probably more going on than a simple fight.

HSLDA’s argument appears to be that where and how children are educated is irrelevant to each of these cases, but I have to disagree. It may be irrelevant, in which case I would hope DYFS would allow homeschooling to continue, but it may not be irrelevant at all. Take the child who got in a fight at the park, for example. What if that child’s parents are not actually teaching them or supervising them and now they’re starting to get in trouble? Wouldn’t it be relevant for DYFS to be able to require the child to be sent to school? And in the other two cases—depending on the situation, it may be pertinent that the children be seen by mandatory reporters to ensure their safety and wellbeing while the issues involved are being dealt with.

Remember that the proposed law did not say DYFS must order the children to school. It left it to their discretion. In cases where the children being homeschooled (and not seen by mandatory reporters) was irrelevant to the other issues, DYFS could have allowed homeschooling to continue while the children are under its care, supervision, or custody.

But again I feel like I’m getting off track. I set out not to argue for or against this bill but rather to talk about the troubling way HSLDA discusses these various situations, as though they are no big deal—and especially the last one. So now that I’ve mentioned the first three cases HSLDA puts out there, let’s talk about that last one.

OR say a family with 6 biological children adopts a 10-year old orphan from Russia who starts making up bizarre stories about maltreatment . . .

I’m still having trouble coherently addressing this because I find it so upsetting.

It’s like the people at HSLDA have never heard of Nathaniel Craver or Alex Pavlis or Victor Matthey or Dennis Merryman. All four of these boys were adopted from Russia and then homeschooled by their parents. All four died as a result of their parents’ abuse or neglect. And if we want to widen the net farther, we can talk about Lydia Schatz or Hana Williams, who were also adopted from foreign countries, were also homeschooled, and also died at the hands of their parents.

I mean, seriously here. What is this “making up bizarre stories of maltreatment” thing? HSDLA appears to think that it is common or ordinary for a child to make false allegations of abuse. It is not. And when adopted children are significantly more at risk of abuse than other children, HSLDA’s phrasing here is the height of irresponsibility. HSLDA’s target audience for pieces like this is their member base. What does this communicate to their members? Well first, that children make up stories of maltreatment, and second, that this is especially the case for adopted children, and third, that this is even more the case for foreign adoptees.

What if Hana Williams had gotten up her courage and gone to another homeschooling mom in their social circle, telling her story asking for help? Would that mother have believed her, or, having read things like this, would she perhaps have written it off as a foreign adoptee’s “making up bizarre stories about maltreatment”?

I mean my goodness, if we widen the net to all adopted children who are homeschooled rather than just foreign adoptees, we have to talk about Christopher Smithberg and Colin David Jones and Christopher Forder and Joseph Beebe and Timothy Boss and Erica Lynn Parsons and Lucas Ciambrone and Nubia Barahona and Calista Springer and Ricky Holland and Crystal Ramirez and Austin and Edward Bryant and Samuel Hudson—and those are just children who have died. There are plenty more cases of gross abuse where the children made it out alive, though certainly not unscarred.

I am not saying that all homeschooled children who are adopted are abused, or even that most are. Far from it! What I am saying is that when it happens (and it does), this idea that foreign adoptees will make up “bizarre” stories of abuse can make it so much harder for that child to find help.

And so, when I got to that part of HSLDA’s statement, I wanted to tear my hair out. This is no way to talk about abuse. This sort of rhetoric actively undermines what little chance abused adoptees may have of getting help—especially when they are homeschooled and the number of adults they may have contact with outside of their parents’ circle of friends and acquaintances is limited.

Badly done, HSLDA. Badly done.

Things HSLDA Opposes: Marriage Equality

Last updated on: January 21, 2015 at 12:28 am By Libby Anne

View series intro here, and all posts here.

HSLDA opposes marriage equality. This is perhaps the oddest entry of my “Things HSLDA Opposes” so far. By and large, we have been able to link HSLDA’s opposition to things that are not homeschool related—such as required eye examinations for public school students—to their position on parental rights. This one seems more removed. And yet.

HSLDA helpfully explains this position in a page titled Why HSLDA Is Fighting Same-Sex Marriage. Let’s take a look!

Parental rights are a recognized constitutional right despite the fact that they are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It is a fair question to ask: if they are implied rights rather than explicit rights, what is the source of parental rights?

Here is what the Supreme Court said in 2000 in the case of Troxel v. Granville:

“Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course.”

Thus, you can see that parental rights are based on “western civilization concepts of the family.”

When those concepts are no longer the legal definition of the family in this nation, then the foundation upon which parental rights are based is completely removed.

In a world which widely embraces the notions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is fanciful to believe that any other theory will arise to replace the traditions of western civilization as a basis for parental rights.

Therefore, HSLDA will continue to fight against same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage attacks the traditions of the family in western civilization. This is an attack on parental rights. This is a battle the homeschooling movement cannot afford to lose.

So, let’s see. Basically, the argument goes like this: Same-sex marriage will mean the collapse of traditional Western concept of the family, which is the foundation of parental rights. Without the traditional western concept of the family, the U.S. will join the rest of the world in espousing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which will mean the end of parental rights.

Never mind that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child says things like this:

States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents . . . to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child does not end parental rights. It simply states that children have rights—such as the right to not be abused, or the right to have adequate food—and that both parents and the state should strive to meet those rights.

That that is really beside the point. HSLDA’s connection between same-sex marriage and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is itself a huge leap. I think it much more likely that the legal system will simply apply current family law to same-sex marriages than that the existing foundations of family law will collapse. I suppose you could argue that further disconnecting child rearing from biology represents a threat to traditional understandings of parental rights, but in that case, shouldn’t HSLDA oppose adoption as a threat as well? Or remarriage?

And of course, it’s worth mentioning that HSLDA makes another leap as well. HSLDA defends parental rights and opposes the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in large part because they argue that homeschooling is based on parental rights, and that the Convention is a threat to both parental rights and homeschooling. But this isn’t necessarily true. HSLDA opposes the Convention’s “best interests of the child” standard, arguing that it conflicts with parental rights (and, presumably, with homeschooling), but this presumes that homeschooling will be found to not be in children’s best interests.

Wouldn’t it be better to focus on showing that homeschooling can be in children’s best interests? Why instead focus on fighting the best interests standard itself?

I’m not going to go through every piece of legislation HSLDA has supported or opposed in its fight against marriage equality, except to say that it is many, and that in many cases HSLDA has urged its members to make calls. Here’s an example:

May 8, 2007

Illinois: Your Calls Needed to Protect Traditional Marriage

Dear HSLDA members and friends:

Last week we told you about H.B. 1826, the bill that would change
traditional family values in Illinois by creating civil unions. The
bill passed the House Human Services Committee, and was supposed to
receive a vote by the full House before May 3, 2007. However, this
bill has had its action deadline date extended until May 10, 2007.

Please, keep calling your state representative!

ACTION REQUESTED

Call your state representative and give this message:

“Please oppose legislation that recognizes same-sex marriage. Please
vote against House Bill 1826, which is an attack on traditional
marriage; it erodes the family and endangers parental rights.”

Go to http://capwiz.com/hslda/state/main/?state=IL&view=myofficials to
find contact information on your state representative.

But there are more, too. North Carolina. Pennsylvania. New Mexico. Virginia. Connecticut. Delaware. Illinois. Iowa. Maryland. Michigan. Rhode Island. Hawaii.

It’s interesting how HSLDA has managed to turn marriage equality into a threat to homeschooling, isn’t it? The line they draw from here to there is shaky at best and filled with unsupported leaps. Still, I have to admit that I am in fact a little bit impressed. I would expect HSLDA’s conservative Christian leadership to oppose marriage equality. But tying the legality of homeschooling to opposition to same-sex marriage? That takes some imaginative thinking right there!