MODERN AMERICAN FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY
Blog by Lucy Maness Warner
October 18, 2015



There are three new Fundamentalist ideas that, according to the RationalWiki article below on Dispensationalism, are not based on the Bible at all. That article states, “Some other concepts also not found anywhere in the Bible, which have nonetheless become core beliefs of today's evangelical Christianity: "Pro-life", Accepting Jesus as your "personal savior", and Dominionism.” The following article on Dispensationalism is written by an Evangelical source and gives more specific information on the movement. See “DISPENSATIONALISM” at http://www.endtimes.org/dispens.html, from which the following is an excerpt:

“Since the positions and conclusions in Endtimes.org are in line with the Dispensational System of Theology, or point of view, the terms need to be explained. There is no need to fear these terms. They describe some simple concepts related to our understanding of the Old Testament Covenants and how God will develop His kingdom program. Even if you have negative feelings about the term Dispensationalism, please go through the following brief explanation of what it is. It could be that it has never been clearly explained. Dispensationalism has influenced the doctrinal beliefs of many churches, including the Baptist church, the Bible churches, the Pentecostal churches, and many other non-denominational Evangelical churches. You may even be Dispensational in your thinking although not be calling yourself a Dispensationalist. Christian is always a better term, but terms like Dispensationalist helps to define where we are coming from when it comes to our views on Endtimes and the present and future Kingdom of God.

Definition

•A Dispensation - The system by which anything is administered. In Christian terms, looking back, it refers to a period in history whereby God dealt with man in a specific way. (Conscience, Law, Grace)
•Dispensationalism - A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations. While 'Dispensations' are not ages, but stewardships, or administrations, we tend to see them now as ages since we look back on specific time periods when they were in force.
•Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.

Ok, what does this mean in layman's terms. Read on. ….

Dispensationalists will define three key dispensations, (1) The Mosaic Law, (2) The present age of Grace, and (3) the future Millennial Kingdom. Most will agree about the first two, and Covenant theology will disagree about the third, seeing this as the 'eternal state'. (Since they don't see a literal Millennial Kingdom - the future literal fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom.)

A greater breakdown of specific dispensations is possible, giving most traditional Dispensationalists seven recognizable dispensations.

1.Innocence - Adam
2.Conscience - After man sinned, up to the flood
3.Government - After the flood, man allowed to eat meat, death penalty instituted
4.Promise - Abraham up to Moses and the giving of the Law
5.Law - Moses to the cross
6.Grace - The cross to the Millennial Kingdom
7.Millennial Kingdom - A 1000 year reign of Christ on earth centered in Jerusalem”

. . . .

So what is the key to Dispensationalism?

The literal method of interpretation is the key. Using the literal method of interpreting the biblical covenants and prophecy leads to a specific set of core beliefs about God's kingdom program, and what the future will hold for ethnic Israel and for the Church. We therefore recognize a distinction between Israel and the Church, and a promised future earthly reign of Christ on the throne of David. (The Davidic Kingdom.) This leads a person to some very specific conclusions about the Endtimes.

•Israel must be re-gathered to their land as promised by God.
•Daniel's seventieth week prophecy specifically refers to the purging of the nation Israel, and not the Church. These were the clear words spoken to Daniel. The church doesn't need purging from sin. It is already clean.
•Some of the warnings in Matthew 24 are directed at the Jews, and not the Church (since God will be finishing His plan with national Israel)
•A Pretribulation rapture - Israel is seen in Daniel as the key player during the tribulation, not the Church. God removes the elect when he brings judgment on the world. i.e. Noah, John 14, 1 Thess 4:16.
•Premillennialism - A literal 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, where Christ returns before the Millennium starts. Revelation 20 doesn't give us a reason to interpret the 1000 years as symbolic. Also, Dispensationalists see the promised literal reign of Christ in the OT. Note the chronological order of events between Revelation 19-21.”



MORE ABOUT ZOMBIES, AND THE ORIGIN OF THAT BELIEF. Please pardon the spelling errors. I did not make them. You can insert a “sic” after every one of them if you want to. I didn’t bother. The writer is not a believer in dispensationalism, and thus has some refreshing things to say about modern Fundamentalist Christianity. See below:


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread264114/pg1

Zombies in the end times? A new twist on the Rapture
posted on Jan, 30 2007

[edit on 23-1-2007 by leira7]

page: 1

I know this might sound crazy but if you here me out, it might make you re-think some things. I have done my research on the Christian perspective of the ends times. Now as some may know, in the past there have been instances where priests or common men have avidly proclaimed that they themselves were able to interpret and shed light on prophetic sections of the bible. I believe that these types of men's interpretations on the book of Revelation to be one of the biggest misconceptions in the Bible. I want to put my focus on one single issue that has been modernized and 'sold', so to speak, to people. There are so many movies, books, and talk about how the supposed "end times" is to take place. One of the main events that many Christians await is called "The Rapture". And again this may be old news for some of you, but for the ones who haven't heard, the word "rapture" is not mentioned at all in any of the books of the bible. Instead the translation of the original Latin word, "rapturo" translates to the Greek verb meaning "Caught up". It was the Jesuit Priest Ribera who coined the term "rapture". When the mid-1800's came about an anglican minister, John Nelso Darbey, began to speak of "dispensationalism" that is a sort of 'secret rapture'. Anyways, the point I'm getting at is that rapture and caught up can mean two different things. The idea of rapture in the minds of fundamentalist Christians consist of a vanishing of some sort in which one minute a person will be there and no more than "a blinking of an eye" they will be gone. As an outsider looking in, it may be difficult to grasp such a concept, unless that is if you have an open mind about UFO's and higher beings of intelligence (but that's another discussion). Christians also back this belief in the rapture up by qouting what can be found in the book of Matthew when the apostles ask Jesus about the ends times . He responds, "Two men will be in the field, one will be taken and the other one left.."(if you want to read the whole paragraph it's Matthew 24:37-42).
If you listen to the evangelists, preachers, authors, and such, you'll begin to notice that all follow a sort of cronological path all including the rise of the anti-christ (which this word is also not mentioned in the Bible instead it says "the beast" but again this is another argument) and either before/after the powershift the rapture takes place, the great battle at megiddo and then finally the glorious "second coming" of Christ. My question to you is, could it possibly be that neatly put? Is it not obvious that the second these things begin to fall into place that the people will not say, "hey I saw this in a movie" or "hey that's what my neighbor was talking about" or "hey, those damn Christians were right" (no offense mind you). Perhaps I'm just a complex person but I really sat back and thought about in. I asked myself what would draw massess of people to one man and almost immediately (within or around the period of seven years) transform them and bring about global peace. That alone sounds impossible, not to mention having one government, one religion, one currency, and so on. How could one man truly do this?

I concluded that something far worse than what has already been witnessed in the history of man must occur and I tied this to the concept of a rapture. I am not shutting down the rapture I do believe that something is happening but I think it's been interpreted wrong. I believe that being caught up means spritually leaving the body. Now a perfectly healthy body without a soul makes that person brain dead right? Now on a grand scale picture millions of people being "caught up" leaving perfectly good bodies behind. If demons truly do exist, would they not take advantage of this moment by possessing these bodies? If you think this is a stupid idea then I ask you this, why does it say that "the dead in christ shall rise first" if their souls are already in paradise? Sounds like zombies to me.”



This is the first mention I have seen after searching the Net of zombies, or something like them, being related to the Apocalyptic view of Christianity, i.e. “The End Times.” It makes sense to me as an origin of this Zombie craze that we are in. Coming from the South I have heard people (not in my Methodist Church, I mean) speak of “The Rapture” at all. I first heard it in the 1970s. Lots of screwball stuff was coming out then. So many people in the world, not just in the US, are highly illogical in the way they think. To rational people a belief system like this simply wouldn’t be believed at all. It would be scorned. My Methodist minister once told me that he didn’t recommend that people read the book called “Revelation,” -- not “Revelations” as so many pronounce it -- because he considered it to be “confusing.” I’ll say it is. In fact most of the Bible is “confusing” in that rather than following a given subject until some light is shed upon it, there will usually be no more than three verses on the matter at hand and then a totally different subject will be taken up.

That lack of explanation combined with the rapid shifts to new material makes it totally inscrutable to me. It reminds me of the James Joyce novel, “Ulysses.” On the subject of Ulysses, Wikipedia quotes critics: “According to Declan Kiberd, ‘Before Joyce, no writer of fiction had so foregrounded the process of thinking.’[3] However, even such a proponent of Ulysses as Anthony Burgess described the book as "inimitable, and also possibly mad".[4]

I agree with him thoroughly. It is unreadable, and from my viewpoint, a big waste of the reader’s time, in that it has 265,000 words (it was almost three inches thick in paperback). I will patiently and painstakingly unravel poetry such as “Four Quartets” by T S Eliot. I would probably put him above all the other poets who were given to me to read in my English classes, including Shakespeare (which is, of course, pure heresy to most English lit scholars). What I consider to be “good” poetry is often a puzzle to be solved, but it’s worth the effort because its’ impact is almost always emotional/spiritual/insightful rather than an elaborate and artificial attempt to do something purely academic and ever so “clever,” in a piece of literature that is “modern or new” above all other things. Dadaism is another example. It’s like winning a place in Ripley's Believe It or Not! It’s not art.

Unfortunately those things often fall apart into a pile of minutiae with no logical central theme as I read them. The only thing of that type I’ve ever enjoyed or respected very much is the poetry of E E Cummings. He is like Emily Dickinson; both of them can come at a subject from such a bizarre but refreshing angle that you suddenly realize he has stimulated a really new thought. Now, I enjoy that.

Back to the Bible, though. I have mainly read the King James Version because even with what it lacked in logical thought trains, it was beautiful and eloquent. By examining individual verses I could find wisdom and beauty there. The modern language versions were frowned upon by many Southerners, because of the fact that they were clearly interpretations rather than “the Word of God.” (How can holy literature be believed literally if the words have actually been changed, for whatever reason?) Such sacrilege!

However, having read one of the modern language versions later, I found that the Word, when translated into the Modern tongue does make considerably more sense and therefore is more instructive. That’s one of the primary changes that Martin Luther made on the public mind. It was less magical than was saying some half-understood Latin over and over, but it was much more informational. If you want to get picky about whether it is a true translation, get one of those Bibles with a Concordance and some scholarly statements about each phrase.

Aesthetically, however, it is a loss that there are no more of those things like “The voice of the turtle was heard throughout the land.” One rationalist interpretation of that verse that I read states that “the turtle” in question is the fearsome Roman battle formation in which their soldiers walked into heavy combat in small groups, each of whom was protected from arrows or stones by the simple tactic of each man holding his shield above his head to form something like the hard outer shell of a turtle. The fact that the Romans called it the “testudo,” or “the tortoise” lends real credibility to that interpretation of the verse. The Romans were hated in Palestine and Israel as they destroyed local authority and tried to force the Jews and later the Christians to worship the Roman Emperor of the time as a God. Needless to say, they rebelled against it in the kind of constant warfare that we see now between Israel and Palestine, for much the same reasons. Middle Easterners of all stripes are very hard-headed people.

The following article is about a painful modern result of those who take the Bible language literally. A cartoon book called The Walking Dead about apocalyptic times, which supposedly is nigh upon us, has become a cult favorite. It, with its hideous graphic imagery, is very popular, like those books from the 1990s, the Left Behind series. I was working in the Thomasville library when they were popular, and Boy, were they popular! Those who came to get them were believers, and actually compared them to the Bible for extra insight, held reading groups to discuss them, etc., while the authors made a huge amount of money on them. Some people are looking for anything to take them away from real life. No more stress on loving our neighbor as ourselves, after all, when it’s so much more fun to separate off into religious, racial and ethnic groups and fight it out. That’s one of the main parts to the Walking Dead television show – guns and fights, with filthy-looking skeletons that move around in a spasmodic, grotesque and completely unbelievably manner. In short, I don’t understand the appeal of the show at all, and “believing” things like that leads right to insanity (or is a sign of it).

Read the following articles, especially the real life horror story in which people who either believe in zombies literally, or see them as a source of enlightenment, which is simply sick to me have a big convention together and a fight starts with an armed lunatic. That kind of thing makes as much sense to me as "raves." Do you remember raves? Young people would agree on a time and place to meet and proceed to "party," often without permission. They would dance and generally act up stimulated by electronic music. See the following definition. A Rave is worth imagining. It did look to me like a lot of fun, and essentially harmless.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rave

Rave
1) n. any gathering of people centered around listening to and dancing to electronic music, as played by a set of live djs. Originated in 1989 in the UK as underground, often illegal gatherings in abandoned warehouses. Often characterized by the positive, psychedelic atmosphere, influnced often (but not always) by drugs and casual sex.

2) v. to dance in a style characteristic of dancers at raves, synonymous with fluid, liquid
1) There is this awesome rave tomorrow night in a warehouse downtown; all these famous djs will be playing

2) Some clubbers don't like it when I rave to hip-hop music ;-)
by hyperexcel June 17, 2003


Finally, on The Walking Dead and some of the bizarre modern religious beliefs, I hate to see good literature and sincere thought being abandoned for a substitution which is not even anything real at all. It is bunk. The last article below from the website “religionnerd.com,” which is clipped at the bottom of the blog is a very good description of what is going on among the relatively ignorant, possibly borderline psychotic, and probably mainly young audience which is keeping that horrible TV show “The Walking Dead” on the air. Oh, well, I will just “tune out” and follow my own drummer, as always.



IN THE REAL WORLD NEWS:


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/deadly-shooting-zombicon-fort-myers-florida/

Deadly shooting at ZombiCon in Florida
CBS/AP
October 18, 2015

Photograph -- Emergency medical workers and police work next to a person at the scene of shooting Saturday, Oct. 17, 2015, at ZombiCon in Fort Myers, Fla. Police say a shooting at the gathering killed one person and injured four others. MELISSA MONTOYA-OCAMPO/THE NEWS-PRESS VIA AP

FORT MYERS, Fla. - Police say a shooting at the ZombiCon gathering in Florida killed one person and injured four others.

Lt. Victor Medico of the Fort Myers Police Department said the shootings began at 11:45 p.m. Saturday, The News-Press reported. He said police were searching for a suspect, and the four people hurt had injuries that were not life-threatening.

No details were immediately available about the suspect or victims. Police told CBS affiliate WINK-TV in Fort Myers they don't know if they're searching for one or multiple suspects.

The annual festival had been expected to draw more than 20,000 fans dressed as zombies, the newspaper said. Medico said the scene was described as "shoulder to shoulder."

A statement on the ZombiCon Facebook page said organizers were saddened by the news and the group takes the safety of its patrons very seriously.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_(comic_book)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Walking Dead is an ongoing black-and-white American comic book series created by writer Robert Kirkman and artist Tony Moore.[1][2] It focuses on Rick Grimes, a sheriff who is shot in the line of duty and awakens from a coma in the zombie apocalypse. He finds his wife and son, and meets other survivors, gradually taking on the role of leader among a group and later a community.

First issued in 2003 by publisher Image Comics, the comic is written by Kirkman[3] with art by Moore (issues No. 1 - 6) and Charlie Adlard (issue No. 7 onward).[4] Moore continued to do the covers through issue No. 24.[5]

The Walking Dead received the 2007 and 2010 Eisner Award for Best Continuing Series at San Diego Comic-Con International. The series was adapted into the AMC television series The Walking Dead, which premiered in 2010. The television program loosely follows the storyline of the comic book. The franchise has also spawned multiple additional media properties, including video games (e.g., The Walking Dead video game), webisode series (The Walking Dead: Torn Apart, The Walking Dead: Cold Storage, and The Walking Dead: The Oath), and various additional publications, including books (e.g., The Walking Dead: Rise of the Governor).




http://religionnerd.com/tag/robert-kirkman/

The World Ended: Didn’t You Get the Memo?: AMC’s The Walking Dead and the Allegorical Zombie, Part I
By Kate Daley-Bailey….
Dec, 01 2010

To my pleasant surprise, the series appears to be driven by character development, and, while still maintaining a decent amount of gore, highlights many social and moral concerns. While not explicitly stated, the series continues to investigate key issues which dominate the Postmodern American cultural consciousness such as: rapid globalization and economic anxiety, cultural and religious pluralism, moral relativism, the brutal reality of physical decay and mortality, and the ethics of war.

These words are spoken in sardonic jest by Amy, one of the few survivors, when another woman questions the division of labor in their “refugee” camp. AMC’s new blockbuster, The Walking Dead, is the latest embodiment of the apocalyptic zombie phenomena in American popular culture. This TV miniseries is based on a comic book series of the same name written by famed Robert Kirkman and illustrated by Charlie Aldard. Despite my popular culture preference for vampire fictions, my macabre fascination with the conceptions of “death” and “life,” and the liminal space between the two, led me to watch the first episode, along with the 3.6 million viewers in my demographic (adults 18-49), on Halloween of this year (stats from David Dreher at Akron Horror Movie Examiner).

To my pleasant surprise, the series appears to be driven by character development, and, while still maintaining a decent amount of gore, highlights many social and moral concerns. While not explicitly stated, the series continues to investigate key issues which dominate the Postmodern American cultural consciousness such as: rapid globalization and economic anxiety, cultural and religious pluralism, moral relativism, the brutal reality of physical decay and mortality, and the ethics of war.

Rapid Globalization and Economic Anxiety:

In Religion and Globalization: World Religions in Historical Perspective, John Esposito, Darrell Fasching, and Todd Lewis define globalization as:

the product of the growing interdependence of cultures through emerging global techno-economic and sociocultural network.(3)

These authors also note that because these networks “transcend national boundaries,” they often “challenge previous forms of authority.”(3) In Walking Dead, traditional hierarchical forms of authority such as hospitals, the military, the government (in particularly the CDC), and even local law enforcement have collapsed under the weight of the crisis. Rick Grimes, the show’s protagonist, is a small town police deputy who gets shot in the line of duty. When he awakens from a coma in an abandoned hospital and learns about the outbreak, he sets out to find his wife and son. Although Rick still dons his police uniform which seems strangely outdated and reminiscent of the old West, he insists that he is no longer a “cop” and is just a man “looking for his wife and kid.” When he does act he does so, not as an agent of the state, but as an individual. But despite his protestations, Rick still acts with a strong commitment to human society (i.e. his return to Atlanta to save Merle and warn Morgan and his son).

When he is guarding the doors to the department store with a woman named Andrea, she admires a necklace on display: he asks her why she doesn’t just take the necklace. She smiles and says it is because there is a cop looking over her shoulder and she wonders if taking it would be considered looting. They both look back to the doors where a mass of zombies are crushing themselves against the glass to break down the department store doors and he states that he doesn’t think the old rules apply anymore. Although Rick no longer represents man’s “law,” his actions and words point to a sense of moral agency even in the face of desperate “survival” conditions. He will not condemn others (Andrea) for “looting” but he also feels an obligation to assist other survivors, even a violent racist (Merle), simply because he is still human.

Rick encountered firsthand the radical breakdown of traditional images of American power, when he confidently rides a horse directly into the epicenter of the zombie outbreak. Rapidly the situation deteriorates, swarms of zombies surround him, and he barely escapes, finding shelter in an abandoned military tank, while the mass outside disembowels his horse. The iconic Western vision of a lone cowboy riding into town to regulate and distribute justice dissolves in seconds when it is faced with the complex nature of new global realities. The zombie outbreak requires more than brutal force and intimidation, it requires a new model of being in the world, one that requires not just “guts” but also “brains.”

The zombie virus spreads through contact with those infected (bites, scratches), thereby putting the whole population (network) at risk of contamination. With increased connectivity and communication comes a greater risk of exposure. Cities, microcosms of a globalized world, and bastions of the cosmopolitan world, are abandoned and those who do survive do so in small social groups in makeshift rural camps. Isolationism is championed by some in these small groups as a tactic for self-preservation (i.e. Shane). The short episode of “normalcy” in the show’s beginning puts into stark relief the war-torn images of desolate towns and ravaged cityscapes (burned out buses, lines of abandoned cars littering Atlanta’s highways). The breakdown in authority and lack of enforcement of said authority leads to economic devastation. Clean water, gas, energy, food, guns and ammunition, are all limited commodities. There is no standard unit of currency and the small group seems to negotiate using a bartering system.

In The Suburban Gothic in American Popular Culture, Bernice M. Murphy explores Gothic culture, linking the modern American Zombie genre to anxieties regarding consumerism, mass production, and loss of individuality. In chapter three, entitled “Aliens, Androids, and Zombies: Dehumanization and the Suburban Gothic” Murphy explores the zombie phenomena.

George A. Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead” (1968) took a supernatural threat which had previously been located in the Caribbean and associated with black magic and instead depicted zombies roaming around the American countryside, shambling parodies of their former selves.” (85)

Murphy continues,

by making his zombies cannibals (a characteristic otherwise largely absent from previous zombie movies) Romero facilitated his desire to pass comment on what he saw as the mindless consumerism and materialism of late twentieth-century American life. (86)

Some of this critique of American “mindless” consumerism may also be reflected in AMC’s Walking Dead series. The department store scene, mentioned previously, in which hordes of vacant-eyed animated corpses press their flesh up against the glass doors, all blank faces and clawing hands, is eerily suggestive of the masses of crazed American shoppers who anxiously wait outside stores on Black Friday.

Cultural and Religious Pluralism: Fear of Moral Relativism

Postmodernity, to turn again to Religion and Globalization, is presented as a term that describes how globalization has transformed society into a pluralistic, multicentered reality subject to global influences that raise difficult questions about public norms and public order- questions that can easily lead to conflict.(6)

Accordingly, Postmodernity, is marked by the loss of a normative center or, put another way, its multiplicity of centers allows for a corresponding multiplicity of normative moralities (each beholden to its own center). In a pluralistic society, in which more than one center claims supremacy, cultures and/or religions compete, and as is the case in Postmodern, pluralistic societies, many overarching meta–narratives (religious or otherwise) are viewed with skepticism. These Postmodern, pluralistic societies often appear “normless” or “without common shared meaning.” (Religion and Globalization 5)

In Philosophy of Horror, Philip Tallon notes (in a chapter entitled, “Through a Mirror, Darkly: Art-Horror as a Medium for Moral Reflection”) that horror, as a genre, challenges the hubris of Modernity:

Where the Enlightenment placed great confidence in our ability to understand and organize the world according to over-arching ‘meta-narrative’ (big stories), postmodern thinkers like Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998) have described our current condition as defined by ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives.’ For Lyotard, postmodernism represented a failure of all large-scale systems to adequately explain the world… Often this incredulity toward meta-narratives shows itself in our casual attitude toward moral objectivity.(38)

Tallon later reflects on horror’s ability to challenge both Modernity’s hubris and Postmodernity’s skepticism: “In criticizing postmodern relativism, horror pushes us to takes seriously our deepest moral convictions, but in criticizing lofty Enlightenment values, it also casts doubt on our highest moral intentions.”(40)

How might a TV series about flesh-eating ghouls challenge a viewer’s preconceived notions of social, political, and religious “givens”? As a genre, horror depends on meta-narratives (religious or not) to frame the world, but horror is also contingent on the failure of said meta-narratives to categorize all phenomena (i.e. zombies). Zombies are dead and yet alive, they are monsters but they are also victims, they are completely Other and yet were once just like us. If zombies are categorically uncontainable (if there are fractures in the meta-narrative), then there can be no proscribed action. And yet, as Tallon so potently remarks: “… there seems to be, despite the widespread trend towards relativism in morality and aesthetics, a deep human desire for bedrock order.”(39)

Rick’s initial reluctance to destroy the zombies (the wandering man, the little girl collecting toys at the gas station, and even the mutilated half corpse woman) displays his skepticism towards the new meta-narrative dominating his world which says all zombies are monsters, merely reanimated corpses. However, when Rick embraces the moral ambiguity of the situation, that these monsters have some semblance of humanity still in them, he is able to face them. Before he shoots the half corpse, he tells her he is sorry this happened to her. Before he initiates the dismemberment of another zombie, Rick reads out the man’s name from his driver’s license, notes that it is a Georgia license, that he had a picture of a pretty girl and $28 in his wallet when he died. Rick also notes that this zombie had once been just like them, human.

*** Religion Nerd will feature Part II of Kate’s exploration of the Zombie phenomena and AMC’s Walking Dead on December 6, 2010.


As a final statement, I just want to say that when our individually preferred religion, among those groups such as the Baptists, has degenerated into a "philosophy" that is producing such ugliness and violence, I don't believe it is helpful to individuals in their search for higher values, and is too often the cause of hatred and violence against other religious groups. The need for the religion of ones choice to be protected, unless some violent, insane thing is the result of its' influence, such as the New York cult that was in the news last week for killing a boy in an effort to make him "repent," remains one of my most important values championed under the constitution. I do however, feel that violence of that kind should be forbidden under the law, and the participants tried for the crimes that they commit. Luckily, that is occurring now.

Religious Dogmatism versus Living a Truly Good Life


I am publishing this in two places – I took it from the daily blog – because I think it is one of the real problems in American society. Many people are being trained to become violent by our old folkways and religions. This concerns the Leonards of a non-denominational church who beat their son to death to make him repent. Bad move!


CHURCHES AND PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT 2015



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cultlike-practices-at-word-of-life-church/ar-AAfwRJ0?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=iehp

Cultlike Practices at Word of Life Church
Newsweek Max Kutner

Photograph -- Bruce and Deborah Leonard


Before this week, few people knew about what went on inside the brick walls of the Word of Life Christian Church in the village of Chadwicks, within the town of New Hartford, New York. But the recent beating to death of Lucas Leonard, a teenage church member, has begun to pull back the veil on the mysterious group, and details from law enforcement of the incident are consistent with what academics call “religious abuse” and possibly cult-like practices.

Police say that following Sunday Mass on October 11, six church members, including the 19-year-old’s parents Bruce and Deborah Leonard, beat him so he would confess his sins during a “counseling session.” The beating was so bad that family members eventually took Lucas to a hospital, where he died from blunt force trauma to his abdomen, back, thighs and genitals. Law enforcement later found that his brother, Christopher, also showed signs of assault. He too was hospitalized.

Deborah and Bruce Leonard face manslaughter charges and are each being held in lieu of $100,000 bail. A felony hearing was scheduled for Friday. Four more church members, including the boys’ half sister, face assault charges.

Mary Alice Crapo, author of the nonfiction book Twisted Scriptures: Breaking Free From Churches That Abuse, says the details of the Word of Life incident are “absolutely” consistent with those from accounts she has studied and indicate a fringe or cult-like abusive church. “In their minds, they’re thinking they’re helping him. And even though the parents cringe, they really don’t want to do it, they feel bad about it, they’re also pressured by that group.”

In the early 1990s, around the time when about 80 people at a religious compound occupied by the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, died during a standoff with law enforcement, experts in psychology, sociology and religion began writing about what they called religious or spiritual abuse. Cult-like churches are not always as overt as the Branch Davidians. Such abuse can happen anywhere—from small Bible-study groups to mega-churches, the experts say.

In 1991, the Spiritual Counterfeits Project published a 37-question checklist to help people discern if their churches or religious groups were abusive, with questions like: “Does your church interact with other churches?” “Does your church staff avoid secrecy?” “Are your children happy to attend church?”

“If you’re in that church, it’s so subtle,” says Crapo, who is the survivor of what she describes as a New Age cult. “People don’t understand their minds. They think, Oh, my mind’s strong, I’d never believe that.”

The New England Institute of Religious Research describes “aberrational Christian or Bible-based” groups as following “some [religious] principle of greater strictness, more single-minded dedication, or more intense renunciation of the world and its attractions.” Such groups often take scripture out of context, the institute says, separate members from the outside world and practice “spiritual elitism.”

In his 1992 book Churches That Abuse, Ronald Enroth identifies several characteristics of abusive churches, including controlling leaders who manipulate members and impose on them rigid lifestyles, and who make it difficult for members to leave. One victim told Enroth she felt leaving the church would “endanger her salvation, as well as the salvation of her outside friends and family.”

Religious abuse “is inflicted by persons who are accorded respect and honor in our society by virtue of their role as religious leaders,” Enroth wrote. “The perversion of power that we see in abusive churches disrupts and divides families, fosters an unhealthy dependence of members on the leadership, and creates, ultimately, spiritual confusion in the lives of victims.”

Little is known about the Irwin family, which reportedly ran Word of Life in Chadwicks. But its mysterious practices are consistent with accounts in Enroth’s book.

“I had never heard of [the church] before, and I’ve lived here in the area for 67 years,” says an employee at a church in New Hartford, who asked Newsweek not to name her or her church because she did not have permission to speak to the press.

“The parishioners at my church have always been puzzled by what kind of a church that is,” says Reverend Terry Sheldon of St. George’s Episcopal Church in Chadwicks. “People said nobody came in, nobody went out. So it was quite a mystery building.”

According to The New York Times, a prosecutor said Thursday the beating may not have involved the confession of sins, but rather may have occurred because Lucas planned to defect.

Difficulty leaving is a key aspect of abusive churches, experts say. Lois Gibson, an abusive church survivor who now runs support groups through her website Spiritual Abuse, says the mentality is, “You will be doomed if you leave. They’re not like a healthy church where if somebody decided to leave for whatever reason, they wouldn’t feel like they were leaving the ‘truth’ or leaving God or something bad was going to happen to them.”

Since she started her website in 1997, Gibson says she has heard from hundreds of people who said they were the victims of abusive churches across the United States and abroad, including Canada, Australia and England.

If the beatings did in fact involve confession, that too could be a sign of cult-like practices. “Confessions are really, really powerful in the mind to control people,” Crapo says. Gibson agrees, saying sometimes church leaders will later use confessed information against members in order to blackmail them.

The lengthy Word of Life beating, as police have described it, matches victims’ accounts from Enroth’s book. One victim told Enroth, “‘There was punching, hitting, children were whipped with belts, women were whipped with belts.’ This behavior was defined as ‘love’ for the victim, because, ‘if you really love someone, then you're going to pay the price for that person to be set free.’”

Another account from Enroth’s book said public confessions would last “anywhere from four to 20 hours. These sessions usually usually took place at night.… These intimate details, including those related to one's sexual behavior, were [later] brought up over and over again to produce feelings of deep guilt.”

Even the lawyer for Deborah Leonard, Devin Garramone, says the signs point to cultlike practices, of which he says his client was a victim. “In my meeting with my client, right away I had the distinct feeling that this woman had some sort of trauma about her. She was very meek and timid.” She was a member of the church for decades, Garramone says, “so that’s a long time to get indoctrinated.”

Garramone adds, “She’s very distraught and she breaks down and cries sometimes when I get into what went on. She’s reckoning with a lot and I think this may be the first time in a long time that she's been on her own away from the church and she’s dealing with a lot. Maybe she’s realizing for the first time how manipulated she had become.”

Donald Gerace, a lawyer for Bruce Leonard, paints a different picture of the church and its practices: “Everything I’ve learned about the church...has indicated that the church has regular Sunday services: It has Bible study; it has an outreach program to provide food to disadvantaged individuals; it has regular annual events.”

Referring to his client, Gerace adds, “What had occurred was as a result of a revelation to him by his son regarding some of his son’s past behavior, and it’s an unfortunate and tragic event affecting the lives of many people now.”



https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415969680

Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence
edited by Nicky Ali Jackson and published by Routledge
© 2007 – Routledge

820 pages

About the Book


The Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence is a modern reference from the leading international scholars in domestic violence research. This ground-breaking project has created the first ever publication of an encyclopedia of domestic violence. The primary goal of the Encyclopedia is to provide information on a variety of traditional, as well as breakthrough, issues in this complex phenomenon.

The coverage of the Encyclopedia is broad and diverse, encompassing the entire life span from infancy to old age. The entries include the traditional research areas, such as battered women, child abuse and dating violence. However, this Encyclopedia is unique in that it includes many under-studied areas of domestic violence, such as ritual abuse-torture within families, domestic violence against women with disabilities, pseudo-family violence and domestic violence within military families. It is also unique in that it examines cross-cultural perspectives of domestic violence.

One of the key special features in this Encyclopedia is the cross-reference section at the end of each entry. This allows the reader the ability to continue their research of a particular topic.

This book will be an easy-to-read reference guide on a host of topics, which are alphabetically arranged. Precautions have been taken to ensure that the Encyclopedia is not politically slanted; rather, it is hoped that it will serve as a basic guide to better understanding the myriad issues surrounding this labyrinthine topic.

Topics covered include: Victims of Domestic Violence; Theoretical Perspectives and Correlates to Domestic Violence; Cross-Cultural Perspectives and Religious Perspectives; Understudied Areas within Domestic Violence Research; Domestic Violence and the Law; and Child Abuse and Elder Abuse.





http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=146

Religious Attitudes on Corporal Punishment
Children’s Healthcare Is A Legal Duty, Inc.
by Rita Swan
October 17, 2015


Corporal punishment, defined as discipline that intentionally causes physical pain, has been meted to children throughout recorded history in most cultures. However, nineteen countries, beginning with Sweden in 1979, have laws prohibiting all corporal punishment, while courts in two other countries have ruled it illegal.

A few religions have spoken out against corporal punishment while others not only permit it, but declare it to be divinely mandated.

The United Methodist Church is the first Christian denomination to take an official position against corporal punishment. The church passed resolutions in 2004 discouraging parents from hitting children and calling upon states to prohibit corporal punishment in schools, daycares, and residential facilities for children.

In the 19th century the founder of the Baha’i faith prohibited corporal punishment of children in his scriptures. Some scholars say Baha’i was the first religion to oppose corporal punishment.

While few denominations have taken a position against corporal punishment, individual clerics and devout believers have written that Jesus’ teachings advocate respect for children and training without striking them. End Physical Punishment of Children posts several such statements on its webpage at www.stophitting.org. Teresa Whitehurst’s How Would Jesus Raise a Child? and her webpage at www.jesusonthefamily.org, Christians for Nonviolent Parenting at www.nospank.net, and the Lawrences at www.parentinginjesusfootsteps.org present Jesus as leading by example with the qualities of the beatitudes to nurture the internal moral compass of individuals, including children. Jesus valued affirming, nurturing relationships above legalistic rules, they say.

The Catholic Church does not have a national policy on corporal punishment, but the Ohio-based Center for Effective Discipline wrote to 174 Catholic dioceses about their policies. All of the 132 dioceses that responded either prohibit corporal punishment in their schools or said that none of their schools use it. Several diocesan spokespersons told another researcher that their policies against corporal punishment related to theological teaching on the dignity of the human person.

Several studies have shown both the practice of and belief in corporal punishment to be much higher among fundamentalist Protestants. Researchers for www.religioustolerance.org found they are the only religious group that publishes doctrinal justifications for corporal punishment.

Many fundamentalists believe that hitting children is sanctioned or mandated by the Bible. They cite these verses in the Old Testament’s Proverbs as authority for their belief: 3:11-12, 13:24, 19:18, 20:30, 22:15, and 23:13-14. The latter claims that if you beat a child with a rod, he will not die, but instead will have his soul saved. One tape-recorded sermon advises parents to “wound” the child with corporal punishment because Proverbs 20:30 says a wound cleanses away evil.

Punishment by putting tabasco sauce on the tongue or clipping a clothespin on the tongue is recommended for verbal defiance, biting, and lying in Lisa Whelchel’s Creative Correction. She cites Bible verses as authority for her disciplinary methods. The publisher is Focus on the Family founded by James Dobson, the most prominent advocate of corporal punishment.

No recorded words of Jesus recommend corporal punishment of children or subjugating them. No New Testament verses say that children should be struck with the hand or with implements. In Hebrews 12, St. Paul speaks of fathers “chastening” and “correcting” their sons as an analogy for the trials Christians encounter in their spiritual growth, but the verses do not indicate that chastening should be physical. Paul says that children should honor and obey their parents, but also says fathers should not anger or discourage children (Ephesians 6:2-4, Colossians 3:20).

Paul does, however, set forth an authoritarian model for the family with wives and children subjugated to the adult males. A few verses after declaring that women should keep silent in churches and be in subjection, he says that fathers must rule their households and keep their children in subjection in order to be able to take care of the church (1 Timothy 3:4-5).

Several scholars indicate that conservative Protestants’ approval of corporal punishment is based on their beliefs that the Bible is inerrant and has the answers to all human concerns, that children are born with original sin, and an apocalypse or “rapture” is coming soon. Many fundamentalists advocating corporal punishment read Proverbs as a literal injunction to hit children with implements. They reject advice from secular parenting books because the Bible has the correct advice on all matters. Their determination that the Bible is the literal, absolute word of God throughout leads to insistence on authoritarian relationships. They fear that sensuality and libertarianism in popular culture threaten their ability to impart religious values to their children. They do not see the government as supporting their parenting ideals, but rather as interfering with them. They believe that babies are born sinful and naturally inclined to rebel against God and their parents. Reflecting the divine order, men should be in control of their wives and children. A child’s reluctance or refusal to obey a parent’s order is as offensive as Satan’s original rebellion against God. Corporal punishment is sacralized as a divine mandate. Parents must break a child’s will in order for the child and parents to be saved from hell when judgment day takes place in the near future. Fundamentalists are more likely than others to hold images of God stressing punishment and judgment.

Fear of rebellion is prominent among fundamentalists. Dobson recommends that parents be flexible and use various non-violent discipline methods for most problem behaviors of children. But for “willful disobedience” he believes corporal punishment should be a parent’s first resort and that a parent must “win decisively.”

Many, but not all, fundamentalist advocates of corporal punishment recommend striking children with implements rather than the hands so that the parents’ hands will be perceived as instruments of love. Some emphasize that corporal punishment must be continued until the child’s will is broken as shown when the child “accepts” the punishment. Some advocates warn that children may cry during corporal punishment as a strategy of rebellion and should then be hit harder.

Several present corporal punishment as a ritual with firm directions about how to do it, what to use, when to stop, and what to do afterwards. Dobson recommends holding the child close after he accepts his punishment, assuring him of the parent’s love, and then praying with the child in confession that we have all sinned and asking for God’s forgiveness.

Articles on the Christian Parents Network at www.christian-parents.net say parents have a religious duty to do battle against a child and win. Corporal punishment gives children “a foretaste of the potential terror and pain of eternal separation from God,” one says. Another warns parents not to have sympathy for the child when they hit him and accuses non-spanking parents of laziness.

Several fundamentalist advocates for corporal punishment place important caveats on its use. The majority say parents should never strike a child in anger or frustration for then they will be displaying loss of control. They say that children will develop their image of God from the parents’ behavior and therefore parents should show love as well as punishment of sin that is inevitable and consistent.

Dobson and others set age limits. Corporal punishment should not be used on babies younger than fifteen months and rarely if ever used on children more than ten years old, they say. Some fundamentalist leaders, however, recommend hitting infants with switches because they are born with the sin of rebellion and the earlier corporal punishment is started, the easier it will be to control them later.

Judaism does not interpret the verses in Proverbs as authority to hit children with implements nor does it believe children are born into original sin. Israel prohibits all corporal punishment of children.

While several scholars believe that a hierarchical, authoritarian model of sacred and secular relationships and strict gender roles contribute to endorsement of corporal punishment, the Mormons are an interesting counter-example. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) has an all-male priesthood, to which every boy over the age of twelve may belong. Gender-prescribed roles are a map to salvation and the basis of hierarchy and distinction in church doctrine.

The child training literature of this patriarchal religion, however, is radically different from that of fundamentalist Protestants. The Mormon Church’s sacred scriptures do not express the doctrine of original sin, view children as inherently rebellious, nor recommend corporal punishment to break their will.

Joseph F. Smith, the church’s tenth president, advised parents to “use no lash and no violence” with their children. Gordon Hinckley, the fifteenth president, said, “I have never accepted the principle of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child . . . .’ Children don’t need beating. They need love and encouragement.” The church’s magazine Ensign publishes articles calling corporal punishment ineffective and promoting other methods of discipline.

Several studies indicate that religious belief is a better predictor of corporal punishment than socioeconomic status. Features of the larger society, however, may shape religious beliefs or parenting practices. For example, rates of corporal punishment and of religious belief are high in the African-American community. While there may be a causal relationship between those two factors, several scholars have found that racism, urban violence, and high rates of incarceration are causes of corporal punishment among African-Americans. Many of these parents spank their children severely because they want to protect them from street violence and from the punishments of a white power structure.

Critics of corporal punishment say that most injuries and even deaths due to physical abuse of children begin as discipline. Beatings have gone on for hours because children would not apologize or meet another parental demand. Some say that a religious rationale increases the emotional harm done by corporal punishment. Insisting that the physical pain comes because of love and that a supernatural being has ordered it compounds the assault on the child’s sense of self. The parent’s love is conditioned upon stripping the child of will.

Critics also point out that hitting children with implements makes the parent less aware of the force being used. They find the claim that parents may win salvation by hitting their children insidious. Some claim that even the conservative Protestants’ emphasis on hitting without anger is harmful. They feel that this religious group has made corporal punishment a ritual in which the parent becomes emotionally detached and irresponsible on the assumption that he is acting as God’s agent.

Furthermore, the doctrines of supernatural evil and original sin may lead adults to believe the child is demon-possessed and to attempt an exorcism. Children have been tortured and killed because of belief in demon-possession.

Most research on the impact of corporal punishment is criticized as unscientific and misleading by proponents or opponents. The many variables involved make scientific conclusions difficult. Elizabeth Gershoff reviewed 88 studies of corporal punishment with 62 years of data and found that corporal punishment was associated with ten negative outcomes for children and the only positive effect was short-term compliance. Robert Larzelere, however, found that corporal punishment confined to loving parents’ infrequently giving toddlers a few swats on the buttocks was beneficial. One study found that persons who believe the entire Bible is literally true have more unrealistic expectations of children and less empathy toward children’s needs than nonliteralist Christians. Another found that fundamentalist Protestants who are involved in their churches spend more time participating in their children’s activities and talking to them than other parents. The quality of the total parent-child relationship influences the impact of corporal punishment.

Public policy

Twenty-nine states prohibit corporal punishment in public schools. Most of them also outlaw it in state-licensed daycare and residential facilities for children. Only two of those states, Iowa and New Jersey, prohibit corporal punishment in parochial and private schools. New Jersey became the first state to abolish corporal punishment in the schools in 1867 and Massachusetts became the second state in 1972.

Many fundamentalists lobby for school personnel to have a legal right to hit children. The trend, however, is to prohibit it in more public schools, partly because of civil liability. In nine of the 21 states that allow corporal punishment by state law, more than half of the students are in school districts that have banned it. In the 1999-2000 school year, Texas had the highest percentage and number of children given corporal punishment by school staff with 73,994 instances. By 2005, however, the school districts of Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and many other Texas cities had prohibited corporal punishment.

Forty Christian schools filed suit to overturn the United Kingdom’s ban on all school corporal punishment, charging that it prevented them from teaching morals to their students and interfered with religious freedom. The European Court of Human Rights and UK courts ruled against them. In South Africa 196 Christian schools brought a similar challenge; the South African Constitutional Court ruled against them.

Given the strength of religious conservatism in the U.S. and the lack of consensus in scholarship, the U.S. is highly unlikely to ban corporal punishment of children by parents in the foreseeable future.

References and Further Reading


Bartkowski, John and Christopher Ellison. “Divergent Models of Childrearing in Popular Manuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the Mainstream Experts.” Sociology of Religion 56, no. 1 (1995): 21-34.

Capps, Donald. The Child’s Song: The Religious Abuse of Children. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Dobson, James. The New Dare to Discipline. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 1992.

Ellison, Christopher. “Conservative Protestantism and the Corporal Punishment of Children: Clarifying the Issues.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35, no. 1 (1996): 1-16.

Ellison, Christopher and John Bartkowski. “Religion and the Legitimation of Violence: Conservative Protestantism and Corporal Punishment.” In The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global, edited by Jennifer Turpin and Lester Kurtz, 45-67. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997.

Ellison, Christopher, John Bartkowski, and Michelle Segal. “Do Conservative Protestants Spank More Often? Further Evidence from the National Survey of Families and Households.” Social Science Quarterly 77, no. 3 (1996): 663-73.

Gershoff, Elizabeth. “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: a Meta-analytic and Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 128, no. 4 (2002):539-79.

Gershoff Elizabeth, Pamela Miller, and George Holden. “Parenting from the Pulpit: Religious Affiliation as a Determinant of Parental Corporal Punishment.” Journal of Family Psychology 13, no. 3 (1999): 307-320.

Greven, Philip. Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.

Grille, Robin. Parenting for a Peaceful World. Alexandria, Australia: Longueville Media, 2005.

Hines, Denise and Kathleen Malley-Morrison. Family Violence in the United States: Defining, Understanding, and Combating Abuse. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications, 2004.

Kimmel, Tim. Grace-based Parenting. Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2004.

Larzelere, Robert. “Child outcomes of nonabusive and customary physical punishment by parents: an updated literature review.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 3, no. 4 (2000):199-221.

Straus, Murray. Beating the Devil out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and its Effects on Children. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Whelchel, Lisa. Creative Correction: Extraordinary Ideas for Everyday Discipline. A Focus on the Family book. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2000.

Whitehurst, Teresa. How Would Jesus Raise a Child? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2003.

Web pages with material on corporal punishment

www.stophitting.org

www.nospank.net

www.jesusonthefamily.org

www.parentinginjesusfootsteps.org

www.religioustolerance.org

www.christian-parents.net

www.corpun.com

[A version of this article appears in Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence edited by Nicky Ali Jackson and published by Routledge.]




While my greatest fear surrounding religion is the tendency of fanaticism to emerge within doctrinaire religious groups of all kinds, which fosters community violence and often war with other groups, I have other complaints as well. I see this kind of thing emerging within the US among Fundamentalist Christians since 9/11 and the influx of various types of Islamic groups into Western societies, and we’re seeing an absolute epidemic of that in the Middle East and other places right now. I’ve had two frequently forwarded emails from a more conservative friend of mine haranguing against these ultimate outsiders the jihadists.

While I do see a genuine potential threat from the possibility of Islamic jihadists making their way here under the guise of escaping ISIS, I think we should let the police, FBI, Homeland Security, etc. deal with them. That is their job, in my view. When radically militant and very "different" religious groups enter the country in large numbers as they have in Germany, France and other European nations, it is impossible to vet individuals sufficiently well to avoid having a national security issue. As a Unitarian liberal, I am only able to relate to people as individuals with differing characteristics, because I don’t believe in group hatred; and I want to avoid buying into the current mood of “conservative” hysteria that is so much in the news. It is entirely possible for lynch mobs and church/mosque/synagogue bombings to occur here. That social reaction to the Islamic threat is equally as dangerous as the enemy we wish to fight off. City neighborhood warfare is not impossible here and it would surely destroy what we hope is civilization.

This particular type of religious extremism in the story above is not as commonplace, luckily, as the anti-Islamic furor of the present. Most Methodists or Baptists would not treat a child of theirs in this way, or at any rate not to such an extreme. It has, however popped up in our country many times down through our history, from the witch burnings at Salem to the White Supremacist “Christian Identity Churches” that are in mainly rural parts of the South and West, and are more closely linked with Fascism than with religion of any recognizable kind.

Unfortunately, extreme Christian groups such as the Word of Life Christian Church are a natural outgrowth of the very common beliefs among Fundamentalist Christians in being saved based on how strongly held the individual’s “faith” is in the exactly repeated and memorized "word of God," in other words the King James Bible. That faith is, as opposed to logic, gentleness, love and individual thought, mandatory for membership. They are indeed “Christian Soldiers marching on to war,” much more than true disciples of the teacher who preached love, acceptance, giving to the poor, helping the sick, and individual introspection.

These groups are a direct result of the much prized guarantee of our “freedom of religion.” Personally, I think our federal and state laws should step in to stop things like this very brutal “punishment” of a teenaged boy who admitted to some sin, perhaps homosexuality or simply fornication. It’s like the Roman Catholic problem with sexual child abuse among the clergy. It isn’t just a “sin,” it is a crime, as these ignorant and unfortunate people the Leonards are finding out. I almost feel sorry for people like that, but not quite. The inculcating of rage, hatred, and violence as the ruling factors in our personalities is something that is, at least halfway, a voluntary personal decision. It makes timid or "disrespected" people feel powerful, and so it is preferable. I would submit, however, that the parents who do something like this were probably treated the same way themselves when they were young, and are as a result mentally disturbed. Mrs. Leonard is described by her lawyer as being unnaturally timid. She has probably been the recipient of similar treatment many times. Much mental illness masquerades as religion.

Sexual sins are generally considered to be the worst by these churches. Their view is really very similar to the Fundamentalist Islamic position on all sexual misbehavior, who have been in the news within the last few years for sometimes stoning a sinner to death in a public place, just as the Jews were about to do to an unnamed woman when Jesus stepped in and stopped them by simply saying “He that is free from sin cast the first stone.” Think, people!!

If any of you feel that I shouldn’t have used the word “themselves” in the paragraph above, go to the following website and look it up. Here, I’ll do it for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/themselves

them-selves
[th uh m-selvz, th em-]

plural pronoun

1. an emphatic form of them or they :
The authors themselves left the theater. The contract was written by the partners themselves.

2. a reflexive form of they (used as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition):
They washed themselves quickly. The painters gave themselves a week to finish the work. The noisy passengers drew attention to themselves.

3. (used after an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine himself or the definite feminine herself):
No one who ignores the law can call themselves a good citizen.

4. (used in place of they or them after as, than, or but):
no soldiers braver than themselves; As for the entertainers, everyone got paid but themselves.

5. their usual, normal, characteristic selves:
After a hot meal and a few hours' rest, they were themselves again.

Origin of themselves

1300-50; them + selves; replacing themself, Middle English thamself; see self


Usage note Expand


See myself.

MARSHMALLOWS NOW AND IN THE PAST – CANDY, VEGETABLE AND MEDICINE


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshmallow

Marshmallow

A marshmallow is a sugar based candy that, in its modern form, typically consists of sugar, water and gelatin whipped to a spongy consistency, molded into small cylindrical pieces, and coated with corn starch. Some marshmallow recipes call for eggs. This confection is the modern version of a medicinal confection made from Althaea officinalis, the marshmallow plant.[1]


Alternative names Marshies, Mallows
Type Confectionery
Main ingredients Sugar
Variations Food coloring





https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althaea_officinalis

Althaea officinalis

Althaea officinalis (marsh-mallow,[1] marsh mallow, or common marshmallow) is a perennial species indigenous to Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa, which is used as a medicinal plant and ornamental plant. A confection made from the root since ancient Egyptian time evolved into today's marshmallow treat.[2]


Traditional uses

The leaves, flowers and the root of A. officinalis (marshmallow) all have medicinal properties. These are reflected in the name of the genus, which comes from the Greek ἄλθειν (althein), meaning "to heal".[3] In traditional Chinese medicine, Althaea officinalis is known as 藥蜀葵 (pinyin: yàoshǔkuí). It is claimed to increase the flow of breast milk and soothe the bronchial tubes.[4]

Marshmallow is traditionally used as a treatment for the irritation of mucous membranes,[5] including use as a gargle for mouth and throat ulcers, and gastric ulcers.[6] A study on rats concluded that an extract from the flowers has potential benefits for hyperlipidemia, gastric ulcers and platelet aggregation.[7] The root has been used since the Middle Ages in the treatment of sore throat.[2]

The root extract (halawa extract) is sometimes used as flavouring in the making of a Middle Eastern snack called halva. The flowers and young leaves can be eaten, and are often added to salads or are boiled and fried.

The later French version of the recipe, called pâte de guimauve (or "guimauve" for short), included an eggwhite meringue and was often flavoured with rose water. Pâte de guimauve more closely resembles contemporary commercially available marshmallows, which no longer contain any actual marshmallow.

The entire plant, particularly the root, abounds with a mild mucilage, which is emollient to a much greater degree than the common mallow.[citation needed] The generic name, Althaea, is derived from the Greek "ἄλθειν" (to cure), from its healing properties. The name of the family, Malvaceae, is derived from the Greek "μαλακός" (soft; Latin "mollis"), from the special qualities of the mallows in softening and healing.

Most of the mallows have been used as food, and are mentioned by early classic writers with this connection. Mallow was an edible vegetable among the Romans; a dish of marsh mallow was one of their delicacies. Prosper Alpinus stated in 1592 that a plant of the mallow kind was eaten by the Egyptians. Many of the poorer inhabitants of Syria subsisted for weeks on herbs, of which marsh mallow is one of the most common. When boiled first and fried with onions and butter, the roots are said to form a palatable dish[citation needed] , and in times of scarcity consequent upon the failure of the crops, this plant, which grows there in great abundance, is collected heavily as a foodstuff.




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvaceae

The Malvaceae, or the mallows, are a family of flowering plants estimated to contain 243 genera with 4225+ species.[2] Well-known members of this family include okra, cotton, and cacao. The largest genera in terms of number of species include Hibiscus (300 species), Sterculia (250 species), Dombeya (250 species), Pavonia (200 species) and Sida (200 species).[3]

A number of species are pests in agriculture, including Abutilon theophrasti and Modiola caroliniana, and others that are garden escapes. Cotton (four species of Gossypium), kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus), cacao (Theobroma cacao), kola nut (Cola spp.), and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) are important agricultural crops. The fruit and leaves of baobabs are edible, as is the fruit of the durian. A number of species, including Hibiscus syriacus, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Alcea rosea are garden plants.

NURSE PRACTITIONERS IN MEDICINE



Yesterday I went to my mental health center for a renewal of my meds. My old “doctor” was a Nurse Practitioner with a Masters in Psychiatry. He was personable, down to earth, and highly knowledgeable about medications and people, and I felt that I could tell him anything. We weren’t doing therapy, per se, but he would ask me questions about how I was doing, smile and show real pleasure at good things that had happened to me and he was warm and non-judgmental toward me at all times. I always looked forward to seeing him, because he acted toward me with friendliness and did not expect me to kowtow to him.

He has retired as of a month ago, so they have given me a new doctor, who is a Psychiatrist with an MD, and ever so conscious of it. I made the mistake of being openly friendly with him, and conversationally asking him what country he comes from. He didn’t answer and stiffened physically, a clear sign of offense. I do frequently ask people where they are from because I am very interested in names, faces and parts of the world. It’s my way of traveling the world, since I can’t afford world travel. I certainly do NOT feel anyone is inferior to me, and I welcome “outsiders” rather than seeking to exclude them. Most people I ask that question do take it as friendly interest, and it serves as an “ice breaker.” Not so with him.

I also made the mistake of warmly mentioning “Dr.” Fricke, whom I have known for a long time is an NP. He said in a frigid way, “I am a Psychiatrist.” I reactively said, “Oh, a Psychiatrist! Great!” He then spoke of Mr. Fricke as “Mr.” Fricke with a heavy emphasis on the “Mr.,” and the fact that he is NOT a psychiatrist. I let that pass. He prescribed my meds. Finally I asked him whether he is from the Philippines, explaining that he has a Spanish name, but an Asian face, and that I had known several others from the Philippines. He retorted, “You’re a very intelligent person!” I wasn’t trying to prove that I’m an intelligent person, but to establish a human connection with him. I don’t want to deal with him as my doctor.

Between his heavy emphasis on his medical degree, his scornful mention of Fricke and his general distancing behavior and coldness, I plan to call the mental health center and ask to be put with another individual, and another Nurse Practitioner if possible. I recognize Alcalde as a highly “conservative” personality of the exact type that I dislike and distrust. They’re all about status ranking, especially theirs. That really isn’t helpful in a psychotherapy setting. It may be the old Freudian model, but it doesn’t work for me. My prior therapists have not been Psychiatrists, though one had a PhD in Psychology, but I was able to form trusting relationships with them and they guided me through the process of thinking my reactions and past experiences out. That’s what therapists should do. I can only relate to people who respond warmly in that kind of relationship. While it’s true that I perhaps shouldn’t respond to such interpersonal distancing as dislike, I do tend to do that. I also don’t form relationships with people who are socially or personally conceited.

See the very interesting and informative blog below.




http://www.maverickhealth.com/blog/entry/it-is-a-mistake-to-call-a-nurse-practitiioner-a-nurse/

It Is a Mistake to Call a Nurse Practitioner a Nurse


I do not like it when people call me a Nurse. I liked it when I was a Nurse, but for more than 17 years now I’ve been a Nurse Practitioner. The two titles are NOT interchangeable and the duties and responsibilities are NOT the same.

As a Nurse Practitioner I’m often asked “What should I call you?” Doctors are addressed as “Doctor”, but if your doctor is a Nurse Practitioner, how should you address that person?

Call Me Carla, Just Don’t Call Me Late to Dinner

My patients are often not sure what to call me. When they ask me, I say “just call me Carla”. That’s my name. When patients call me Ms. Mills, it makes me feel like some stiff and formal version of myself - and that is not who I am as a health care provider. On the other hand, if you are my dry cleaner and just lost my best pair of black slacks, you will find Ms. Mills works a lot better for you.

Names Matter

Names matter. Don’t you dislike it when someone calls you by the wrong name? I think most of us do. Names call things what they are. A maple is a tree, but every tree is not a maple. A terrier is a dog, but every dog is not a terrier. A Nurse Practitioner is a Nurse, but every Nurse is not a Nurse Practitioner.

Types of Nurses and Their Correct Titles

I don’t know why my profession has chosen such confusing language to name the different types of nursing professionals but it’s no wonder you are confused about who does what.

Even among advanced practice nurses like Nurse Practitioners, there are other types of nurses who also have advanced clinical training. Those include Nurse Midwives, Nurse Anesthetists, and Clinical Specialists.

My purpose in writing this post is to help you get nurses’ names strainght. I will describe the three types of licensed professional nurses. I am also including CNAs, who are NOT nurses, but are healthcare workers that assist nurses. When you use the words “Nurse” or “Nurse Practitioner” I want you to know what you are talking about.

Correct Names of Nursing Professionals

Nurse Practitioner (NP) is a licensed registered nurse with advanced academic and clinical training at the master’s or doctoral level. NPs provide both medical and nursing care under their own license. NPs are licensed to give orders, prescribe medications, and direct medical care of patients. Depending on state law, NPs practice either independently or in collaboration with physicians. NP areas of specialization and certification include Family, Adult, Pediatric, Gerontologic, Women’s Health, Psychiatric, School and Occupational Health, Emergency, Neonatal, and Acute Care. NP education is shorter than physician education, and continuing education for certified NPs is 150 hours every five years and recertification is every five years. Click here for more about NP practice. Correct name: Nurse Practitioner or NP.

Registered Nurse (RN) is a licensed health professional who is a graduate nurse who has passed an examination for registration. Education required is an Associate’s or a Bachelor’s degree but may be a Master’s or Doctorate degree. RNs provide nursing care, administer medications, provide health counseling and teaching, and supervise less skilled personnel. The RN must have an order to administer any medications or give any treatments. RNs are NOT licensed to give orders, prescribe medications, or direct the medical care of patients. It is this difference in scope of practice between a NP and RN that makes calling a Nurse Practitioner a Nurse incorrect. Correct name: Nurse or RN.

Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) is a licensed health professional who works under the supervision of an RN, NP, PA, MD, or DO; education required is a high school diploma and completion of a formal training program at a vocational school or community college that includes supervised clinical instruction. LPNs must also successfully complete a licensing examination. LPNs can perform many basic nursing functions including administering medications. Their scope of practice varies from state to state. Correct name: Nurse or LPN.

Certified Nurse Assistants (CNA): are NOT nurses. They are healthcare workers, unlicensed but certified, and are known by many names including CNA, Nurse Aides, Orderlies, Patient Care Technicians, and Home Health Aides. They are an important part of the healthcare team and provide direct, hands-on care to patients in a wide variety of settings. They give personal care such as bathing and feeding and other duties and work under the supervision of an LPN or RN. Education depends on the state, and requirements for certification vary anywhere from two weeks of training followed by a test to several months of clinical and classroom training. Correct name: CNA or Nurse’s Aide.

3 Ways to Support Nurses

NPs, RNs and LPNs work together with the collective goal of providing you the best care possible. You can return the favor by doing the following:
•When you are treated by a Nurse Practitioner, say you saw a Nurse Practitioner and not a Nurse.
•When you talk about nurses who have cared for you, identify them by their correct titles.
•When you hear someone jumbling up our roles and titles - correct them.

We already love you, learning about our profession and understanding our titles are the best ways to love us back!

This information is offered for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, prescribe or treat. For that please seek direct care from a health professional.


COMMENTS


#1 | On October 12, 2009, happy said:

Erm hang on one second.

A nurse practitioner IS a nurse. A nurse with extra qualifications in some aspects of practice, but a NURSE nonetheless. Why are you ashamed of your profession?


#2 | On October 13, 2009, Carla said:

Dear Happy,

A nurse practitioner is a nurse - absolutely! But it is a mistake to call a nurse practitioner a nurse for two reasons - 1) It is confusing and 2) nurses and nurse practitioners have different scopes of practice.

Nurses (either LPNs or RNs) are skilled health care professionals that administer and follow the orders of doctors, physician assistants and nurse practitoners.

Nurse practitioners function in roles traditionally associated with doctors. Nurse practitioners write orders and direct care - nurses do not.

EXAMPLE: If a patient reports that he or she saw “a nurse” no medical work up is implied. If the patient says he or she saw a nurse practitioner, it will be understood the patient has had a medical evaluation and probably diagnostic studies as well.

Ashamed to be a nurse - blarny! I am PROUD to be a nurse!! When I worked as an RN calling me a nurse was correct. But it is a mistake to call a nurse practitioner a nurse - and it is confusing to other providers and to patients. Let’s call each other by our proper titles. Nurse practitioners are absolutely nurses - but not all nurses are nurse practitioners.

Carla Mills



#3 | On February 06, 2010, Dawn said:

My husband received his doctorate in nursing (ND) from CWRU twenty-four years ago, as well as an MSN from Case. He’s been a university professor for the past 22 years and has always been call doctor by his students. Five years ago, he acquired his post-doctoral certificate as a family nurse practitioner and became a certified FNP. When he started collaborating with a local physician (part-time in addition to his full-time work as a professor), the physician’s staff, NOT the physician, insisted that the patients be told to call him by his first name and not call him doctor. They said they were concerned about misrepresentation, etc. During the first few years some of the same staff members made derogatory remarks about his educational credentials, and were always quick to “correct” patients who called him doctor. None of these staff members even had a four-year college degree, yet my husband has a full 11 years of higher education under his belt—BS, MSN, MBA, NP Cert., & ND. The whole situation would have been comical if it hadn’t been so absurd. My husband was very patient with them. Since that time all of the negative members of the original staff have left the practice. And my husband has proven himself as an outstanding practitioner with an excellent reputation as a diagnostician. A percentage of the previously-established patients in the practice even prefer to be seen by him on a regular basis rather than be seen by the physician. He has also brought many patients to the practice and has established his own new-patient population. Many of these patients are associated in some way with the university at which he teaches and these patients prefer to call him doctor. The current staff, however, discourages this by referring to him by his first name in front of the patients, even going so far as to tell patients, “We call him ....... so that patients won’t be confused and think he’s a doctor.“ —But if there’s anyone who knows he’s an ND and not an MD/DO, it’s these patients from the university community. I think it’s unfortunate, because he has more than earned the right to be called doctor, can’t accurately be called mister; and having patients call him by his first name is inappropriate because it doesn’t afford him the respect he is due for all of his hard work, knowledge, credentials, and responsibility he takes on in seeing, diagnosing, treating, and prescribing for his patients. (A very popular local chiropractor, who does not have prescribing rights, is always referred to by the title doctor by the same patient population.) I strongly believe all of the patients should call my husband doctor, and that this would appropriately increase the level of confidence and trust they have in him.


#4 | On February 06, 2010, Carla Mills said:

Dawn,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment which highlights many of the difficult issues related to NPs and our titling. I revisit this question again in my upcoming column in the Jan-Feb 2010 issue of NP World News. I’d also be very interested in hearing from your husband himself.

I do not know how best to resolve this issue. A professor on a college or university campus with the title of Dr. is a clearly understood position. A NP using the title Dr. in a medical setting (at least at this point in time) is confusing. It’s not a matter of it not being earned or deserved – it’s just confusing.

I agree ND (nurse doctor) is a better title than NP (nurse practitioner) because it more clearly defines the role. For my part, I’ve been a clinician for over 25 years and am often called “doctor” but I correct people 100% of the time when they do it. Even if I had a doctorate degree in addition to my masters’ plus 25 years of clinical experience, I do not want to be called a “doctor” because I’m not one and am more proud of being a NP.

It also doesn’t bother me being on a first name basis with my patients. It is an expression of our partnership and that is what I want to achieve therapeutically. But that’s just me, clearly DNPs and PhDs cherish their degrees and many want to use the title “Dr.”. What title serves patients and NPs best? That’s what we have to come to some agreement about as a profession.

I suspect the subject will continue to provoke a lot of debate and bleed a lot of time and energy from NP practice - energy that I think could be used in better ways. That is the thing that frustrates me about the whole issue.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Carla



#5 | On March 29, 2010, Heather MacLeod, ARNP-BC said:


I am a psychiatric NP working in community mental health. This problem of what to call me comes up daily. Most of my patients, when I tell them I’m not a doctor but a nurse practitioner, still call me “doctor,“ and often to show that they heard me delineate the two, they will call me “doctor Heather.“ It’s interesting.

My current medical director calls me by my first name, regardless that I have asked him to refer to me as NP with my last name. For obvious reasons, I am leaving that job, and am considering at my new employment, making clear that I want my patients to call me NP with my last name.

The reason for this is that it cuts through the confusion, and in dealing with patients, especially forensic patients, the NP title denotes respect. Calling me by my first name has become too jocular and when I am having to tell a benzo-seeking patient “no,“ the first name basis becomes a hindrance.


#6 | On April 03, 2010, Carla said:

Hi Heather,

You highlight well here how titling and respect and authority all go together and affect how effective providers can be with patients.

Thanks for commenting.

Carla Mills


#7 | On September 13, 2010, Helen Harris said:

What name should I call a Nurse Practitioner, who prescribed my 49 year old brother-in-law Lisinopril, which severe allergic reactions caused difficulty breathing, swelling of hands, mouth, face, lips, tongue & entire body; renal failure, blood pressure dropped, vomiting, sudden unusual weight gain of 32 pounds, and angioedema that killed him after consuming only two pills over a two day period?


#8 | On September 13, 2010, Carla Mills said:

“Nurse Practitioner” - just as you would call any physician who prescribed exactly same medication (one, by the way, that is commonly used safely and effectively by millions of patients who have high blood pressure and/or diabetes) - “Doctor”.

I hope, though, that the very first thing you did was call an ambulance. What you describe is a life-threatening medical emergency that required IMMEDIATE emergency intensive care. It may not have been possible for the prescriber to predict his reaction. Delay in seeking emergency care in a case like this can result in the tragic outcome you describe.

I am sorry for your loss.


#9 | On March 09, 2011, Lori,DC said:

I appreciate this discussion: most of it has been very educational and eloquently stated. I came looking for an asnwer as to how to address a letter to a nurse practioner. I will use the title NP Smith, and hope that I don’t get off to the wrong start. I think people resist using NP ahead of a name because it doesn’t flow, or it just sounds strange. But, as with anything, the more we hear it, the more we will get used to it!

I agree with most of what is said regarding establishing boundaries and professional qualification via one’s title. I think in general, regardless of what one calls a healthcare provider (or anyone for that matter), their respect or lack thereof comes through in their comments and actions. Also, I find that the respect patients have for a provider is not because of their credentials, but because of their skill and the manner in which they treat their patients.

I also wanted to say that I found the tone of some of the comments above to be less than respectful, especially in regards to the post by Dawn stating that the local chiropractor was called doctor, and they don’t have the right to prescribe. Chiropractors don’t prescribe because our method of treating the body is using physical, not chemical, treatments. Our scope of practice does not include prescribing by choice and design, not because we are not worthy. Chiropractors take all the same A&P, pathology, and diagnosis courses as at med school. The difference is in our chosen method of treatment. The degree is a doctoral degree, and so the proper title is Doctor. Also, in many states, we may function as a primary care physician, coordinating and directing a patient’s care. We do have the right to order laboratory and imaging studies.

Sorry for the lecture, but in this forum focused on giving proper respect via a title, I felt compelled to educate those who may not know about my profession (which is the purpose of the letter I must now write to NP Smith).

Thank you for helping me!
Lori


#10 | On March 09, 2011, Carla said:

Hi Lori,

I think you really hit the nail on the head with this comment:

“I think in general, regardless of what one calls a healthcare provider (or anyone for that matter), their respect or lack thereof comes through in their comments and actions. Also, I find that the respect patients have for a provider is not because of their credentials, but because of their skill and the manner in which they treat their patients.“

Thanks for visiting.

Carla Mills

REINS ACT
Commentary as of September 27, 2015


This morning on Meet The Press Carly Fiorina strongly advocated passage of the REINS Act to put the approval of federal regulations in the hands of Congress. Not only do Republicans tend to hate regulations in general, but their right leaning stances could mean that a liberalizing regulation would be opposed “on principle.” Besides the matter of which regulations would be allowed under the act, it would remove the authority from the Executive, which means Congress can effectively tie the president’s hands. That is horrible, especially with Congress members like we have right now. I didn’t recognize the name of this act, but I knew that if Fiorina wanted it, I most probably didn’t, so I went to Google.

I was unable to find a nicely summarized and explained Wikipedia article, so I found some of the raw and highly political commentary instead. On Google, I found the following articles:

Questioning the Constitutionality of the REINS Act: Bill ...
blogs.law.columbia.edu/.../questioning-the-constitutionality-of-the-reins-...
Questioning the Constitutionality of the REINS Act: Bill Seeks to Restructure Federal Rulemaking Process. Posted on February 14th, 2011 by Greg Wannier.

Why the REINS Act is Unwise If Not Also Unconstitutional ...
www.regblog.org/.../why-the-reins-act-is-unwise-if-not-also-unconstituti...
May 3, 2011 - A proposed act would hinder needed regulations, thereby interfering with the executive branch's constitutional authority to execute the law.

The REINS Act and the Struggle to Control Agency ...
www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Siegel16.1.pdf
by JR Siegel - ‎Cited by 4 - ‎Related articles
Mar 28, 2013 - The tremendous significance of the REINS Act has led to fierce debate about both its constitutionality and its wisdom. This article explains that ...

The REINS Act: Unbridled Impediment to Regulation - SSRN
ssrn.com/abstract=2550870
Social Science Research Network
by RM Levin - ‎2015 - ‎Related articles
Jan 17, 2015 - The article also questions the constitutionality of the bill. Some authors contend that the REINS Act would be valid, because Congress does not ...

REINS Act Archives - The Volokh Conspiracy
volokh.com/tag/reins-act/
The Volokh Conspiracy
Apr 16, 2013 - Professor Siegel agrees with me that the REINS Act is constitutional, but thinks it would be a bad idea. In addition, the NYUJLPP has posted a ...

The Problem With The White House Threat To Veto ... - Forbes
www.forbes.com/.../the-problem-with-the-white-house-threat-to-v...
Forbes
Jul 28, 2015 - Called the REINS Act, or Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny, ... What is unprecedented in our constitutional republic is the ...

UPDATE: Three Reasons the REINS Act Must Be Stopped ...
www.foreffectivegov.org/three-reasons-reins-act-must-be-stopped-again
Jan 23, 2015 - If passed, the REINS Act would require congressional approval of all ... It is high time that Congress reins in the unconstitutional power of the ...

Would the REINS Act Rein In Federal Regulation?
www.cato.org/.../would-reins-act-rein-federal-regulation
Cato Institute
Jan 24, 2011 - REINS Act supporters hail the legislation as a needed check on federal ... tially unconstitutional attack on federal regulations that could.

Committee Reports - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - House ...
thomas.loc.gov › THOMAS Home › Committee Reports
THOMAS
A. ÌHistory of the Congressional Review Act and the Need for Reform .... Claeys testified that the REINS Act represented a constitutional means of providing for ...

The REINS Act - Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/REINSact
Americans all across the country support the REINS Act, because as the .... Tim Brown You do realize the REINS Act would be unconstitutional, don't you?





The REINS Act’s results in Congress


http://volokh.com/tag/reins-act/

Assessing the REINS Act
by Jonathan H. Adler on November 10, 2012
Administrative Law, Regulation

Among the regulatory reform proposals passed by the House of Representatives this year was the “REINS Act,” a proposal to require Congressional approval before major regulations could take effect. Supporters and opponents of this bill have presented the REINS Act as a deregulatory tool. The actual effect of the REINS Act is likely to be more modest, for reasons I explain in an article forthcoming in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (available on SSRN here). While I believe the REINS Act would significantly increase legislative accountability for regulatory policy, I doubt it would stop all that many regulatory initiatives, particularly those with significant public support.

Passage of the REINS Act has always been a long shot. Though it passed the House of Representatives, the Senate has shown little interest. This month’s election makes the REINS Act’s chance of becoming law even more remote, as the Democrats have increased their Senate majority and President Obama has said he would veto REINS were it to reach his desk. Debates over regulatory reform will continue nonetheless. So, for those interested, here’s the abstract of the paper SSRN.

Over the past several decades, the scope, reach and cost of federal regulations have increased dramatically, prompting bipartisan calls for regulatory reform. One such proposed reform is the Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). This proposal aims to restore political accountability to federal regulatory policy decisions by requiring both Houses of Congress to approve any proposed “major rule.” In effect, the REINS Act would limit the delegation of regulatory authority to federal agencies, and restore legislative control and accountability to Congress. This article seeks to assess the REINS Act and its likely effects on regulatory policy. It explains why constitutional objections to the proposal are unfounded


by Jonathan H. Adler on December 8, 2011 6:14 pm in Administrative Law, Regulation
Yesterday, the House passed the REINS Act on an almost exclusively party-line vote, 241-184. All the House Republicans voted for the bill, as did four Democrats. Thought the bill passed the House, it’s not about to be enacted into law. The Senate is unlikely to take up the bill and President Obama has promised to veto the REINS Act should it somehow reach his desk.

My posts on the REINS Act are indexed here. […]


by Jonathan H. Adler on December 7, 2011 8:52 am in Administrative Law, Regulation
Today the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the REINS Act, a bill to enhance political accountability over regulatory decisions. The bill has two essential features. First, it bars new “major” regulations (those anticipated to cost more than $100 million annually) from taking effect unless approved by both houses of Congress. Second, it creates an expedited review process that forces each house to vote on each major rule. So while requiring Congressional approval, REINS prevents members of Congress from ducking their responsibility to vote yay or nay.

REINS is a controversial bill, in part because it effectively limits the delegation of broad regulatory authority to federal agencies, but to read some critics, REINS would usher in an anti-regulatory armageddon. While I support the legislation, for reasons detailed in these posts (and summarized in this NRO piece), I recognize that there are reasonable arguments to be made on the other side. What’s so interesting watching this debate, however, is how many opponents refuse to make them, relying instead on inaccurate and fanciful characterizations of the bill. It’s telling when opponents of legislation are unable or unwilling to describe it accurately when making their case.

To take one example, US PIRG’s Ed Mierzwinski argues that the REINS Act would lead to unsafe toys on the market and emasculate the CPSC.

One bill, the REINS Act, would not only allow but require congressional meddling in the implementation of all public health and safety rules. A single member of Congress, at the behest of some powerful special interest or campaign contributor, could block the public database, block science-based lead standards for children’s products, block crib safety rules or any number of protections that provide a safer consumer marketplace.

The idea that REINS would allow a single member of Congress […]





https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s15

S. 15 (113th): Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013

Introduced:
Feb 26, 2013

113th Congress, 2013–2015
Status:
Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on February 26, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.
Sponsor:
Rand Paul
Rand Paul
Junior Senator from Kentucky
Republican
Text:
Bill Text
Read Text »
Last Updated: Feb 26, 2013
Length: 21 pages
See Instead:
H.R. 367 (same title)
Passed House — Aug 2, 2013

About the bill

Full Title
A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law.

Summary (CRS)
2/26/2013--Introduced.Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013 or the REINS Act - States that the purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for and transparency ... Read more >

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor.


History

FEB 7, 2011

Earlier Version — Introduced
This activity took place on a related bill, S. 299 (112th).
FEB 26, 2013

Introduced
This is the first step in the legislative process.
Read Text »
JAN 21, 2015

Reintroduced Bill — Introduced
This activity took place on a related bill, S. 226.
This is a Senate bill in the United States Congress (indicated by the “S.” in “S. 15”). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the President to become law.


Launched in 2004, GovTrack helps everyone learn about and track the activities of the United States Congress. This is a project of Civic Impulse, LLC. GovTrack.us is not a government website.

About the Site | Contact Us

You are encouraged to reuse any material on this site. GovTrack supports other Congress-tracking websites through our open data.






https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/regulation/news/2011/12/06/10790/5-terrible-no-good-very-bad-things-about-the-reins-act/

5 Terrible, No-Good, Very Bad Things About the REINS Act
Why Lawmakers Should Reject the “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny” Act

This week the House will vote on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act, which would allow either chamber of Congress to refuse approval for rules of regulatory implementation, like those regulating air pollution, for entirely political reasons.

By Kristina Costa | Tuesday, December 6, 2011

The House is expected to vote this week on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act. In a landmark year for misguided, misinformed, and harmful legislation, REINS is a standout. It would require Congress to approve, via a joint resolution, any “economically significant” regulation (otherwise known as a major rule) issued by a federal agency—within 90 days.

REINS would turn a regulatory process currently driven by scientific expertise, industry input, and careful cost-benefit analysis into a political circus. While agencies are not immune from political influence, they must have legal justifications for the rules they promulgate, and those justifications must stand up in a court of law when challenged. But under REINS, either chamber of Congress—or even a single senator—could effectively overturn a law by refusing to approve critical rules of implementation for entirely political reasons.

Here’s what you need to know.


The REINS Act threatens our system of checks and balances

The REINS Act would undermine the system of checks and balances essential to our shared democracy. Under REINS not only would a law need to first pass both chambers of Congress and be signed into law by the president, but any major rules designed to implement that law would need to be approved by both chambers as well. That means that one chamber could effectively overturn a law by refusing to grant approval to essential rules of implementation. In this way, the REINS Act constitutes a radical and unprecedented move away from democratic governance.

Even more disturbing than the possibility that either the House or the Senate could unilaterally gut an existing law is the possibility that a single senator could do so. The REINS Act does not explicitly and clearly prohibit a filibuster in the Senate. So a conservative senator could single-handedly block a “major rule” that aims to limit harmful air emissions. Or a liberal senator with strong gun-control views could filibuster one of the several “major rules” issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service each year to govern the migratory bird-hunting season.

It seems unthinkable. But it’s possible under REINS.


Congress doesn’t have the expertise to evaluate the implementation of every bill it passes

Writing regulations requires detailed technical, economic, and legal knowledge. Whether a regulation is enacted or not shouldn’t be contingent on the opinions of 535 elected officials who lack expertise in the relevant scientific, technological, and economic matters. Major rules are frequently revised based on input from lengthy public comment periods and often-contentious lawsuits. And, while Congress boasts 24 members with medical degrees, an astronaut, an NFL quarterback, and a tugboat captain, there aren’t very many scientists (three), engineers (six), or economists (zero) currently serving terms in the nation’s legislature.


Congress doesn’t have the time to evaluate the implementation of every bill it passes

There are thousands of bills and resolutions introduced each year in Congress, and the House and Senate take hundreds of recorded votes. According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, there were about 100 “major” regulations finalized in 2010. The REINS Act ostensibly limits debate to 10 hours for each joint resolution of approval. That would add up to an extra 1000 hours of debate each year. Even if Congress were in session for all 52 weeks of the year—and they are not—an extra 1000 hours would tack nearly 20 hours of floor time onto each week. That’s not just impractical, it’s impossible.


The REINS Act confuses economic costs with economic effects

A “major” or “economically significant” regulation is one that has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. Economic effects are not limited to the costs of implementing something: they can be the result of net benefits, or the transfer of funds from the government to citizens, or an expected increase in consumer spending. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examines all of the 100 “major rules” finalized in 2010. In their analysis, some federal agriculture subsidies were categorized as “major rules.” So were Medicare and Medicaid payments, fees for passports, and the Department of Education’s Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund. All of these rules would require a round of Congressional approval under REINS.


Finally, Congress already has the power to oversee and overturn regulations

Judging by the rhetoric of REINS supporters, you’d think Congress has its hands tied when it comes to regulatory oversight. That’s far from true. The Congressional Review Act of 1996 has allowed Congress to review new federal regulations and pass joint resolutions to overrule them. Several such resolutions have passed either chamber of Congress, and, in 2001, both chambers voted to overturn ergonomics standards issued by Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Hard as it may be to recall, regulations do more than set conservatives off wailing “job-killer!” around the echo chamber. Your car has seatbelts because of government regulation. Your peanut butter is safe to eat because of government regulation. More rivers and lakes are clean, more children are asthma-free, and prescription medications must be proven safe and effective before being given to patients because of regulation. This week’s vote and the months-long conservative onslaught against cost-effective consumer protections is nothing more than political theater. And it’s long past time for the curtain to come down on this particular revue.

Kristina Costa is a Special Assistant at the Center for American Progress.
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Liz Bartolomeo (poverty, health care)
202.481.8151 or lbartolomeo@americanprogress.org
Print: Tom Caiazza (foreign policy, energy and environment, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7141 or tcaiazza@americanprogress.org
Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education)
202.478.6331 or apreiss@americanprogress.org
Print: Tanya Arditi (immigration, Progress 2050, race issues, demographics, criminal justice, Legal Progress)
202.741.6258 or tarditi@americanprogress.org
Print: Chelsea Kiene (women's issues, TalkPoverty.org, faith)
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org
Print: Elise Shulman (oceans)
202.796.9705 or eshulman@americanprogress.org
Print: Benton Strong (Center for American Progress Action Fund)
202.481.8142 or bstrong@americanprogress.org
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Jennifer Molina
202.796.9706 or jmolina@americanprogress.org
TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or rrosen@americanprogress.org
Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org





http://truthhugger.com/2011/12/07/the-reins-act-h-r-10/

The REINS Act – H.R. 10 Threatens Checks and Balances
by bosskitty
DECEMBER 7, 2011

House of Representatives Passed the bill that Undermines Crucial Safeguards for American Families!


The REINS Act (H.R. 10) was voted on Wednesday, December 7. This bill will cause massive delays in the rulemaking process, makes it far more difficult for agencies to protect us.

The REINS Act now moves to the Senate, where it is sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). More information on the bill is available at http://www.ombwatch.org/reinsact – Please call your Senator and urge him or her to strengthen, not weaken, our system of public protections.

House Passes Bill To Grant Congress Veto Power Over White House Rules
WASHINGTON — A bill that would give the controlling party of either chamber of Congress veto power over any major new regulation passed the House of Representatives Wednesday.

About the REINS Act:

The REINS Act would force each new major regulation to go through a congressional approval process, subjecting it to political infighting, special interest influence, and legislative gridlock. If either house of Congress fails to approve the major rule in a narrow 70-day window, the rule will be killed.
The bill would delay and possibly undo critical safeguards that protect our civil rights, environment, food, children’s toys, workplaces, health care, and economy.
The bill empowers corporate lobbyists and their allies in Congress to ignore science and focus on politicking when it comes to the development of our public protections.

The REINS Act requires any regulatory rule with an impact of $100 million or more on the economy to be subject to approval of the House and Senate within 70 legislative days before taking effect. If Congress were to fail to act on the proposal, with a few exceptions, the rule could not be brought up again until the next Congress.

After Congress passes a law, federal agencies are charged with implementing the law often with a series of more detailed regulations. The Administrative Procedures Act allows interested parties and the public to participate in a detailed fashion in the the rulemaking process. The REINS Act is widely viewed as a way to kill or delay public health, safety or environmental regulations. It would “allow a single member of Congress, at the behest of some powerful special interest or campaign contributor, [to] block science-based lead standards for children’s products, block crib safety rules or any number of protections that provide a safer consumer marketplace,” according to consumer advocate Ed Mierswinski of U.S. PIRG (the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups).

According to Representative Connolly, the REINS Act represents the “171st attack” on public health and the environment in this Congress. The REINS Act was already voted down in the Senate earlier this month as part of the so-called “Republican Jobs Bill.”

Would shifting regulatory power to Congress usher in a lobbying bonanza?

Republicans are trying to shift regulatory power from the executive branch to Congress in a bill that’s expected to pass the House today. The REINS Act would send any “major rule” that’s estimated to cost the economy more than $100 million to Congress — or have adverse effects on consumers, the business climate and individual industries — for an up-or-down vote. If Congress doesn’t approve the regulation in 70 days, it won’t take effect. The bill is dead-on-arrival in the Senate, but it underscores some of the GOP’s biggest anti-regulatory talking points.

That said, the REINS Act essentially leaves it to the executive branch to decide which regulations to send to Congress. Under the bill, officials from the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and Office of Management and Budget are supposed to determine which regulations are subject to a congressional vote, based on their cost to the economy and adverse impact on consumers and the industry. And there isn’t broad-based consensus about how to measure this impact.

Koch Brothers’ “Christmas Present” Up for House Vote

This is another example of the GOP trying to rearrange the power structure in the United States of America. They are determined to impose a twisted interpretation of the United States Constitution. When we don’t pay attention, and when the mainstream media is bought off from alerting the public, we end up railroaded. RAILROADED! Submitted by Rebekah Wilce on December 1, 2011 – 8:52am



The U.S. House of Representatives votes soon on a series of deregulatory bills that, according to the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), “threaten vital health, environmental, safety and financial regulations.”

“We Want Big Biz Ruining Our Lives” (Source: Joe Mohr)Voting is expected on the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010) and the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527) on December 1, and on The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act (H.R. 10) next week.


Thanks to the arrogant manipulation of the Kock Brother’s, John Birch Society, elitist, bigoted mindset, the GOP, is extorted to rearrange the power structure in the United States of America. The GOP is determined to impose a twisted interpretation of the United States Constitution. This is the agenda of Brothers Koch. Why are they still privately owned? Because they cannot survive ethical scrutiny! When we don’t pay attention, and when the mainstream media is bought off from alerting the public, we end up railroaded. RAILROADED!

We have seen the power of big business morph this country into their greedy playground. Corporate America has bought every idea we are exposed to. They want to control our behavior. They want to control our pocket books. They want to control the ethnicity and religion of this country to serve their greedy ambitions. The corporate media complies with the corporate mission to disseminate half truths and shape the emotions of each and every one of us. Corporate media is tasked to control the wants and needs of the general public, because it wants the money it has paid for our services BACK. Everything they pay us, they want back … with interest.


Thank you to: CleverFool.com

Koch Brothers Wealth: Buy When There’s Blood In The Streets

According to Forbes, The Koch Brothers’ wealth has reportedly grown an outrageous $15 billion over the last year and half. Here’s Truth-Out.org with some more on that:

Their combined wealth of $50 billion is exceeded only by the Microsoft founder’s $59 billion fortune. Buoyed by aggressive speculative trading on volatile energy markets, the Koch brothers accumulated $15 billion in wealth since March 2010, a 43 percent increase.

Economy? What economy? Fuck the economy!

The Koch Brothers (Charles and David) are seemingly immune to any sort of economic downfall, primarily in fact, because it seems they feast on human suffering more than Paris Hilton feasts on penis… and boy, is there a lot of that suffering going on in the streets right now…

My letter to Lloyd Doggett: (too late, it passed, hopefully the Senate has more sense) Thankfully Doggett voted NO!

HR 10 tears apart the original checks and balances placed in the US Constitution. HR 10 impedes Government Agencies from enacting pertinent rules and regulations that effect all of us. Because Congress relies on their overworked staff and greedy lobbyists to make their decisions, Americans are being hi-jacked once again by big business interests. Who else can afford to tell a congressman whether or not a regulation will effect their profit margin? Lobbyists are industry specific and do not represent my best interests. Lobbyists represent the best interests of corporations, who only weigh the consequences of regulations on their pocket book.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 901(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 10 RECORDED VOTE 7-Dec-2011 5:30 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law
AYES NOES PRES NV
REPUBLICAN 237 4
DEMOCRATIC 4 184 4
INDEPENDENT
TOTALS 241 184 8




PLEASE PARDON THE OCCASIONAL ROUGH LANGUAGE IN THE ABOVE READER COMMENTS. ABOUT THE REINS ACT, LIKE I SAID, IF FIORINA LIKES IT, I DON’T! She also repeatedly and instantly sidestepped questions on Meet The Press today about where she actually got the reference to an aborted fetus “moving on a tabletop” while someone off camera discussed how to save its brain for sale. I don’t believe fetuses of that age can kick their legs yet.

See "http://wcfcourier.com/ap/commentary/fiorina-s-planned-parenthood-dare-based-on-fake-video/article_a37ff0f3-59e7-57f4-bad1-e3e56b599b0c.html, “Fiorina’s Planned Parenthood dare based on fake video,” Martin Schram, September 27, 2015" for a hard-hitting and eye opening article. Schram is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service.