Why would anyone ever confess to a murder they did not commit? Stranger still, why would anyone confess to a murder they could not commit, because it occurred 2000 years before they were ever born? As crazy as it may sound, people confess to crimes they did not commit more often than we might think. And confessing responsibility for the murder of an innocent man over 2000 years ago is not only common, for many around the world today, it is considered to be a requirement to being seen and accepted as a morally responsible member of the human race. But how does admitting responsibility for the murder of an innocent man 2000 years ago make a person more “moral” than defending one’s innocence of such a crime? If anything, such a “confession” would only seem to make a person morally dishonest. So why are so many billions of people around the world not only so quick to make such a confession, why do they even teach their own children of their need to do the same thing to be “saved”? And in exchange for their confession to such a murder, what is it that such people believe they are being “saved” from exactly?
To begin answering these questions, we first have to strive to "know thyself," both individually and as members of the human race. To do that, we first have to understand that as human beings, we are members of a highly social species. As Daniel Goleman points out in his book “Social Intelligence,” homo sapiens are designed neurologically and emotionally to be incredibly social animals. That means we require social connections as much as we require sleep and water. In fact, our need for social connection is reflected in the complexity of our language abilities, which are all designed to foster social connection and interaction. We are members of one family and constitute one social “body,” in other words, via “the word,” for “in the beginning was the word.” Yet in a society in which both the prevailing economic order and technology increasingly atomize individuals into competing divisions of countries, cubes, cars, and handheld computer screens, and in which political collectivization is generally discouraged as "socialism" or “atheistically communistic,” we become starved for the social connections we are designed to depend on.
In a society that increasingly separates us from each other while also fostering fear and competition, our inherent need for connection and social bonding effectively funnels (i.e., “herds”) people into the groups that claim to be the only thing that can “save” us from both each other and an eternal hell, groups which are also the most socially accepted and permitted: religious groups. This is in part why America has levels of religiosity that rival those of third world countries. Add to this the fact that Christians are required to repeatedly re-experience the horrific torture and mutilation of an innocent man at least once every week, a crime for which they are required to tell themselves they are responsible, and we see more clearly how Christianity operates as a lure for the socially starving masses on the one hand, and a highly developed process of cultivating deep forms of trauma bonding on the other.
In a culture that sees religious affiliation as a virtue, the most socially accepted way of being "saved" from the hell of being rejected by one's parents, family, or peer groups, is to convert to the socially favored brand of religion. In America, that brand, which 63% of the population identify with, is Christianity. To become a Christian, one must accept the guilt Christianity requires. Not to worry, however, for accepting the guilt of killing Jesus Christ as the price of admission to the County Club of Catholicism comes with a number of social benefits. In addition to allowing outsiders (i.e., "them") to assimlate into a larger group of "us," it is also the only way to alleviate the guilt that members are often conditioned to experience from birth, like a phantom pain of their soul, long before they ever realize they are essentially being accused of murdering their own god. Such "guilt" comes from being conditioned to "believe" that every person born into the world is necessarily guilty of "original sin.” That “original sin,” which no human being can avoid being born afflicted with, in turn led to the torture and execution of that famed innocent man 2000 years ago, who just happened to be the "god" of those who killed him. (They didn't know they were killing their own God, so the story goes, because his "plan" required him to hide from them who he really was so they would murder him so he could "save" humanity on the whole. Great plan, eh?) The evidence for “believing” this is true comes in the form of two things: all of the "sin" in the world, and a religion that claims to be the "infallible" voice of God when it proclaims that every member of the human race is born guilty of original sin; a condition which predisposes us all to a penchant for sinning more than obeying God or His Roman Church.
By requiring both a mandatory admission of guilt and the weekly ritualized reenactment of the events leading up to the murder, Christianity instills not simply a sense of guilt, but also a deep sense of shame. As Brene Brown pointed out, the differnce between the two is that guilt is when we feel bad about something we've done, while shame makes us feel bad for something we are. By placing the murder outside of a person's ability to prevent or undo, and requiring an admission of guilt for that murder, Christianity cultivates an underlying sense of both guilt and shame in its adherents. Doing so over the course of a person's life creates a form of spiritualy complex-PTSD and trauma bonding. Often, this processes is aided by a larger-than-life statue that depicts the apex of the barbarous event that one is not only required to believe they are guilty of, but expected also to commune with at the height of the weekly ritualized reenactment. It is this "communion" that helps to foster a sense of shame for being responsible for the suffering and execution of what the "believer" is conditioned to believe is their "savior."
What does said "savior" allegedly "save" them from? Rejection, disconnection, and damnantion. He "saves" them from hell in the next life, which is described as a seperation from God, and rejection and social stigmatization in this life, which comes from being seperated from one's "church." A "church," it should be noted, is defined as "a body of believers." Through this process, whole communities of people are lured into a larger "body of believers" by confessing to the murder of that innocent man from 2000 years ago. In this way, by operating as the cause for the cure it alone claims God has authorized it to provide to the sinful flock, Christianity creates throngs of lifelong dependents upon the relief from the shame and guilt it provides. To alleviate the suffering from the complex-PTSD that a ritualized fear of social disconnection can produce, the "believer" engages in a ritualized form of trauma bonding by making a false confession to the collective family of "believers" at least once a week.
So what exactly is a "false confession" anyway, and how does Christianity use it to prey upon the trauma it helps to instill in its faithful adherents? A false confession is when a person confesses to a crime they did not commit, but may either confess to in the hope of eventually being exonerated or because they come to believe they are, in fact, guilty on some level for the crime, even if they do not remember committing it. Often, a person’s confession to committing a crime may be related to an underlying trauma or feelings of worthlessness, both of which may stem from believing a person is guilty of being so great a sinner that they could only be forgiven through nothing less than the brutal torture and death of a god. This is accomplished in the Catholic Church be requiring Christians to confess every week, “God, I am unworthy to receive you…” before “communing” with the mutilated body of the Christ they "believe" they are guilty of killing, via their sinful nature. They do this, in part, by convincing themselves they are eating his actual flesh and drinking his actual blood. This thought alone is traumatizing to any child who has any awareness of how cannibalistic the whole process clearly is.
According to social psychologist Dr. Saul Kassin, false confessions can be categorized into three general types: voluntary false confessions, persuaded (or internalized) false confessions, and compliant false confessions. (see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/so-sue-me/202009/the-psychology-false-confessions)
As Kassin writes, “Voluntary false confessions are explained by the internal psychological states or needs of the confessor or by external pressure brought to bear on the confessor by someone other than the police or someone in authority.” Often times, the “someone in authority” who is exerting the pressure on a child to “confess” to being responsible for both "original sin" and thus the death of Christ to save their sinful soul, is a parent or a priest or nun. “Voluntary false confessions are frequently attributed to underlying psychological or psychiatric disorders. For example, individuals may feel compelled to falsely confess out of a desire for attention, because they desire to punish themselves, or because they are genuinely out of touch with reality.” In this case, the “desire for attention” can occur when the parent is unable to connect to their child, either because they are working long hours, suffer from one addiction or another, or because they lack the emotional intelligence (perhaps as a result of their own parents inability to connect emotionally to them) to know how, or all three. As a result, Christianity replaces the natural bonds of unconditional love and acceptance that parents automatically have for their child with a brand of “love” that is founded on judgement of one’s behaviors and beliefs. If real love without judgement is like a foods rich in vitamins and nutrients, the judgemental "love" offered by religion is simply a candy bar that rots our sense of self love by conditioning us to internalize such judgements, which we wear within our mind like a crown of thorns. Believing such judgements and dogmatic rules to be necessary, we then place that crown of thorns onto our children as a way to teach them to "love God."
“Persuaded (or internalized) false confessions occur when interrogation tactics cause an innocent suspect to doubt his memory and he genuinely becomes persuaded—whether temporarily or permanently—that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime, despite having no memory of committing it.” For a child, the crime they are being persuaded to admit to is that of Adam & Eve, as well as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Since both “crimes” were committed by the collective that the child belongs to, and long before the child was ever born or before the critical thinking areas of the child's brain ever has a chance to form, the child would obviously have “no memory of committing” either crime, nor any ability to argue in their own defense. Tactics to convince the child they are guilty of said crimes come in many forms.
• Repeated accusations that the suspect committed the crime (To a child in Catholic school, these repeated accusation come from parents and priests and nuns in the form of prayers and the reading of a Bible that is based on a belief that child is, like all humans, born guilty. They also come from the child's confessions, which they begin engaging in ritualistically around age 7, and the admission at every mass that they are “unworthy.” And any denial of this guilt is only interpreted by other "believers" as further evidence of the child's guilt. And the child is thus treated accordingly.)
• Adamant discrediting of the suspect’s denials (for example, by saying that the denial is contradicted by known facts. And nothing is more "factual" to the Christian than an "inerrant" Bible, which easily trumps any assertions of innocence from the child. Again, even the child's desire to doubt the charges leveled agaisnt them by the Church is used to prove that the very “sin” that caused the crimes the child is being accused of is both disobedience to and "doubt" in accepting the authority of the Catholic Church as the "infallible" voice of God. And being "infallible," if the Church declares all children guilty of "original sin," and the inerrant word of scripture declares that "all of have sinned," than any refusal by the child to accept their guilt is considered a form of blasphemy against God's holy church and God's holy word.)
• Fabrications of evidence of guilt (for example, by saying that an eyewitness said that the suspect committed the crime, when no such eyewitness actually exists) (In the Bible, these “false witnesses" are reflected in various ways, such as the 500 witnesses who are alleged to have seen Jesus after the resurrection in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Yet this claim would never be accepted by Christians if it was made by any other religion about their own brand of God. The reasons for not believing in the story of the 500 witnesses can be found here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/04/500-eyewitnesses-to-the-risen-christ-9-reasons-why-its-not-likely/ Ironically, every Christian would use the very same reasoning used by patheos.com to debunk the same claim if it were offered by any other religion but their own preferred brand. Clearly, if an "inerrante" Bible says that 500 witnesses say they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, then Christians have no choice but to "believe" that Jesus must have risen from the dead, regardless of the fact the Christian would never believe such a claim where it made outside of their Bible about Apollo or Osiris or Buddha. And why did he have to die in the first place? Because we are all guilty of the crimes/sins the child is being accused of by their parents and priests and nuns. Duh!)
• Eventually, an offer to resolve the cognitive dissonance experienced by the suspect (for example, by saying, “it’s possible you repressed the memory of doing it”) (Here, the child simply complies out of a need to be accepted by parents who would otherwise disapprove of the child for failing to “believe” they are guilty, the way the parents have decided to “believe” they are guilty, so as to be accepted into the family tradition that celebrates accepting such guilt as being both pleasing to God, and therefore pleasing to their own parents or peer group. )
• Compliant false confessions are given to escape a stressful situation, avoid punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward. The most notable thing about a compliant false confession is that it is made knowingly: the suspect admits guilt with the knowledge that he is innocent and that what he says is false. (The reward for a child is that they get to escape the stressful situation and avoid the punishment of being rejected or feeling disapproved of by their parents, not to mention hell itself. And the "promised reward" for accepting they are guilty is not only the approval of their parents and peer group in the here and now, but also heaven in the hereafter)
• Compliant false confessions may be obtained through physical pressure (for example, torture) but can also be elicited through psychological pressure. For example, a police interrogator may try to convince a suspect that he will inevitably be found guilty in court if he does not confess. (For a child, this "psychological pressure" comes in the form of teachings about “judgement day” that will ultimately find the child guilty and cast into hell if they do not accept and admit their guilt now, before it’s too late. Police interrogators use similar tactics when they tell a suspect that they will seek the death penalty if the suspect refuses to confess to the crime, but a more lenient sentence if they cooperate with the officers and offer a full confession.)
Even in the absence of coercive threats and promises, stress and a desire to escape the interrogation may also lead to false confessions. Custodial interrogations are inherently stressful and unpleasant experiences, and a suspect may reach a point where he is willing to falsely confess just to stop the confrontation. (In a family that is deeply addicted to and dependent upon their religion for their social connections and sense of identity, the "inherently stressful and unpleasnat experience" can go on, day after grueling day, for years, even decades. And all the child has to do to stop from feeling in anyway ostracized by their biological or spiritual "family" is to "confess" to God, and they will be acepted, approved of, and "loved" enough to be spared eternal torments in the afterlife, and social rejection in this one.)
Lastly, convincing a child to make and "believe" such false confessions traps the child in at least three forms of self-sabotaging ideas. The first self-sabotaging idea comes from the fact that such a “confession” teaches a child to “believe” they are inherently bad to begin with, rather than good. Such a “belief,” which only serves to convince the child they are born with the soul of an “ugly duckling” rather than a swan, operates to prevent the child from ever flying beyond the nest their religious group promises the child they (the child) needs to survive. The second self-sabotaging idea comes from the fact that, by only being able to maintain a connection to the group which they come to “believe” they need to survive (both socially and spiritually, in both this life and the next), the child is left to “struggle with their faith.” This means the child is left to struggle between a faith in the “belief” they know they need to remain a member of their group, a “belief” that requires them to “believe” they are guilty as charged, and doubts that such a charge is in anyway true, or even supported by any evidence whatsoever, other than a willingness to simply “believe” it is true. And the third self-sabotaging idea is that such a “belief,” and the inherent struggle that it instills as the child is taught to “work out their salvation in fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), can alienate the child from networking with those outside of their religious group for fear that doing so could jeopardize their salvation by infecting them with “doubts” about the veracity of the child’s “belief” in their own guilt. So, to protect their “belief” from exposure to ideas that may undermine its validity, and only cause the child that much more stress, the child may then both avoid larger social circles that expose them to a diversity of ideas and people, and obsess instead over finding ways to only ever prove to themselves that their “beliefs” are true, rather than just “beliefs,” which can be changed.
Incredibly, the “miraculous” cure for all of these problems is not more religion, but the simplest thing of all: teach your child they are innocent to begin with, and rather than living their whole life thinking they have the soul of an ugly duckling, they will learn to trust and love themselves and soar like one of the highest-flying birds in the world: the swan. In fact, the Whooper Swan can even fly as high as the peak of Mount Everest. And all you have to do to give your child the ability to fly this high is simply decide not to teach your child to sell their soul to be a part of a group by confessing to a crime they didn’t commit.
To begin answering these questions, we first have to strive to "know thyself," both individually and as members of the human race. To do that, we first have to understand that as human beings, we are members of a highly social species. As Daniel Goleman points out in his book “Social Intelligence,” homo sapiens are designed neurologically and emotionally to be incredibly social animals. That means we require social connections as much as we require sleep and water. In fact, our need for social connection is reflected in the complexity of our language abilities, which are all designed to foster social connection and interaction. We are members of one family and constitute one social “body,” in other words, via “the word,” for “in the beginning was the word.” Yet in a society in which both the prevailing economic order and technology increasingly atomize individuals into competing divisions of countries, cubes, cars, and handheld computer screens, and in which political collectivization is generally discouraged as "socialism" or “atheistically communistic,” we become starved for the social connections we are designed to depend on.
In a society that increasingly separates us from each other while also fostering fear and competition, our inherent need for connection and social bonding effectively funnels (i.e., “herds”) people into the groups that claim to be the only thing that can “save” us from both each other and an eternal hell, groups which are also the most socially accepted and permitted: religious groups. This is in part why America has levels of religiosity that rival those of third world countries. Add to this the fact that Christians are required to repeatedly re-experience the horrific torture and mutilation of an innocent man at least once every week, a crime for which they are required to tell themselves they are responsible, and we see more clearly how Christianity operates as a lure for the socially starving masses on the one hand, and a highly developed process of cultivating deep forms of trauma bonding on the other.
In a culture that sees religious affiliation as a virtue, the most socially accepted way of being "saved" from the hell of being rejected by one's parents, family, or peer groups, is to convert to the socially favored brand of religion. In America, that brand, which 63% of the population identify with, is Christianity. To become a Christian, one must accept the guilt Christianity requires. Not to worry, however, for accepting the guilt of killing Jesus Christ as the price of admission to the County Club of Catholicism comes with a number of social benefits. In addition to allowing outsiders (i.e., "them") to assimlate into a larger group of "us," it is also the only way to alleviate the guilt that members are often conditioned to experience from birth, like a phantom pain of their soul, long before they ever realize they are essentially being accused of murdering their own god. Such "guilt" comes from being conditioned to "believe" that every person born into the world is necessarily guilty of "original sin.” That “original sin,” which no human being can avoid being born afflicted with, in turn led to the torture and execution of that famed innocent man 2000 years ago, who just happened to be the "god" of those who killed him. (They didn't know they were killing their own God, so the story goes, because his "plan" required him to hide from them who he really was so they would murder him so he could "save" humanity on the whole. Great plan, eh?) The evidence for “believing” this is true comes in the form of two things: all of the "sin" in the world, and a religion that claims to be the "infallible" voice of God when it proclaims that every member of the human race is born guilty of original sin; a condition which predisposes us all to a penchant for sinning more than obeying God or His Roman Church.
By requiring both a mandatory admission of guilt and the weekly ritualized reenactment of the events leading up to the murder, Christianity instills not simply a sense of guilt, but also a deep sense of shame. As Brene Brown pointed out, the differnce between the two is that guilt is when we feel bad about something we've done, while shame makes us feel bad for something we are. By placing the murder outside of a person's ability to prevent or undo, and requiring an admission of guilt for that murder, Christianity cultivates an underlying sense of both guilt and shame in its adherents. Doing so over the course of a person's life creates a form of spiritualy complex-PTSD and trauma bonding. Often, this processes is aided by a larger-than-life statue that depicts the apex of the barbarous event that one is not only required to believe they are guilty of, but expected also to commune with at the height of the weekly ritualized reenactment. It is this "communion" that helps to foster a sense of shame for being responsible for the suffering and execution of what the "believer" is conditioned to believe is their "savior."
What does said "savior" allegedly "save" them from? Rejection, disconnection, and damnantion. He "saves" them from hell in the next life, which is described as a seperation from God, and rejection and social stigmatization in this life, which comes from being seperated from one's "church." A "church," it should be noted, is defined as "a body of believers." Through this process, whole communities of people are lured into a larger "body of believers" by confessing to the murder of that innocent man from 2000 years ago. In this way, by operating as the cause for the cure it alone claims God has authorized it to provide to the sinful flock, Christianity creates throngs of lifelong dependents upon the relief from the shame and guilt it provides. To alleviate the suffering from the complex-PTSD that a ritualized fear of social disconnection can produce, the "believer" engages in a ritualized form of trauma bonding by making a false confession to the collective family of "believers" at least once a week.
So what exactly is a "false confession" anyway, and how does Christianity use it to prey upon the trauma it helps to instill in its faithful adherents? A false confession is when a person confesses to a crime they did not commit, but may either confess to in the hope of eventually being exonerated or because they come to believe they are, in fact, guilty on some level for the crime, even if they do not remember committing it. Often, a person’s confession to committing a crime may be related to an underlying trauma or feelings of worthlessness, both of which may stem from believing a person is guilty of being so great a sinner that they could only be forgiven through nothing less than the brutal torture and death of a god. This is accomplished in the Catholic Church be requiring Christians to confess every week, “God, I am unworthy to receive you…” before “communing” with the mutilated body of the Christ they "believe" they are guilty of killing, via their sinful nature. They do this, in part, by convincing themselves they are eating his actual flesh and drinking his actual blood. This thought alone is traumatizing to any child who has any awareness of how cannibalistic the whole process clearly is.
According to social psychologist Dr. Saul Kassin, false confessions can be categorized into three general types: voluntary false confessions, persuaded (or internalized) false confessions, and compliant false confessions. (see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/so-sue-me/202009/the-psychology-false-confessions)
As Kassin writes, “Voluntary false confessions are explained by the internal psychological states or needs of the confessor or by external pressure brought to bear on the confessor by someone other than the police or someone in authority.” Often times, the “someone in authority” who is exerting the pressure on a child to “confess” to being responsible for both "original sin" and thus the death of Christ to save their sinful soul, is a parent or a priest or nun. “Voluntary false confessions are frequently attributed to underlying psychological or psychiatric disorders. For example, individuals may feel compelled to falsely confess out of a desire for attention, because they desire to punish themselves, or because they are genuinely out of touch with reality.” In this case, the “desire for attention” can occur when the parent is unable to connect to their child, either because they are working long hours, suffer from one addiction or another, or because they lack the emotional intelligence (perhaps as a result of their own parents inability to connect emotionally to them) to know how, or all three. As a result, Christianity replaces the natural bonds of unconditional love and acceptance that parents automatically have for their child with a brand of “love” that is founded on judgement of one’s behaviors and beliefs. If real love without judgement is like a foods rich in vitamins and nutrients, the judgemental "love" offered by religion is simply a candy bar that rots our sense of self love by conditioning us to internalize such judgements, which we wear within our mind like a crown of thorns. Believing such judgements and dogmatic rules to be necessary, we then place that crown of thorns onto our children as a way to teach them to "love God."
“Persuaded (or internalized) false confessions occur when interrogation tactics cause an innocent suspect to doubt his memory and he genuinely becomes persuaded—whether temporarily or permanently—that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime, despite having no memory of committing it.” For a child, the crime they are being persuaded to admit to is that of Adam & Eve, as well as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Since both “crimes” were committed by the collective that the child belongs to, and long before the child was ever born or before the critical thinking areas of the child's brain ever has a chance to form, the child would obviously have “no memory of committing” either crime, nor any ability to argue in their own defense. Tactics to convince the child they are guilty of said crimes come in many forms.
• Repeated accusations that the suspect committed the crime (To a child in Catholic school, these repeated accusation come from parents and priests and nuns in the form of prayers and the reading of a Bible that is based on a belief that child is, like all humans, born guilty. They also come from the child's confessions, which they begin engaging in ritualistically around age 7, and the admission at every mass that they are “unworthy.” And any denial of this guilt is only interpreted by other "believers" as further evidence of the child's guilt. And the child is thus treated accordingly.)
• Adamant discrediting of the suspect’s denials (for example, by saying that the denial is contradicted by known facts. And nothing is more "factual" to the Christian than an "inerrant" Bible, which easily trumps any assertions of innocence from the child. Again, even the child's desire to doubt the charges leveled agaisnt them by the Church is used to prove that the very “sin” that caused the crimes the child is being accused of is both disobedience to and "doubt" in accepting the authority of the Catholic Church as the "infallible" voice of God. And being "infallible," if the Church declares all children guilty of "original sin," and the inerrant word of scripture declares that "all of have sinned," than any refusal by the child to accept their guilt is considered a form of blasphemy against God's holy church and God's holy word.)
• Fabrications of evidence of guilt (for example, by saying that an eyewitness said that the suspect committed the crime, when no such eyewitness actually exists) (In the Bible, these “false witnesses" are reflected in various ways, such as the 500 witnesses who are alleged to have seen Jesus after the resurrection in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Yet this claim would never be accepted by Christians if it was made by any other religion about their own brand of God. The reasons for not believing in the story of the 500 witnesses can be found here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/04/500-eyewitnesses-to-the-risen-christ-9-reasons-why-its-not-likely/ Ironically, every Christian would use the very same reasoning used by patheos.com to debunk the same claim if it were offered by any other religion but their own preferred brand. Clearly, if an "inerrante" Bible says that 500 witnesses say they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, then Christians have no choice but to "believe" that Jesus must have risen from the dead, regardless of the fact the Christian would never believe such a claim where it made outside of their Bible about Apollo or Osiris or Buddha. And why did he have to die in the first place? Because we are all guilty of the crimes/sins the child is being accused of by their parents and priests and nuns. Duh!)
• Eventually, an offer to resolve the cognitive dissonance experienced by the suspect (for example, by saying, “it’s possible you repressed the memory of doing it”) (Here, the child simply complies out of a need to be accepted by parents who would otherwise disapprove of the child for failing to “believe” they are guilty, the way the parents have decided to “believe” they are guilty, so as to be accepted into the family tradition that celebrates accepting such guilt as being both pleasing to God, and therefore pleasing to their own parents or peer group. )
• Compliant false confessions are given to escape a stressful situation, avoid punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward. The most notable thing about a compliant false confession is that it is made knowingly: the suspect admits guilt with the knowledge that he is innocent and that what he says is false. (The reward for a child is that they get to escape the stressful situation and avoid the punishment of being rejected or feeling disapproved of by their parents, not to mention hell itself. And the "promised reward" for accepting they are guilty is not only the approval of their parents and peer group in the here and now, but also heaven in the hereafter)
• Compliant false confessions may be obtained through physical pressure (for example, torture) but can also be elicited through psychological pressure. For example, a police interrogator may try to convince a suspect that he will inevitably be found guilty in court if he does not confess. (For a child, this "psychological pressure" comes in the form of teachings about “judgement day” that will ultimately find the child guilty and cast into hell if they do not accept and admit their guilt now, before it’s too late. Police interrogators use similar tactics when they tell a suspect that they will seek the death penalty if the suspect refuses to confess to the crime, but a more lenient sentence if they cooperate with the officers and offer a full confession.)
Even in the absence of coercive threats and promises, stress and a desire to escape the interrogation may also lead to false confessions. Custodial interrogations are inherently stressful and unpleasant experiences, and a suspect may reach a point where he is willing to falsely confess just to stop the confrontation. (In a family that is deeply addicted to and dependent upon their religion for their social connections and sense of identity, the "inherently stressful and unpleasnat experience" can go on, day after grueling day, for years, even decades. And all the child has to do to stop from feeling in anyway ostracized by their biological or spiritual "family" is to "confess" to God, and they will be acepted, approved of, and "loved" enough to be spared eternal torments in the afterlife, and social rejection in this one.)
Lastly, convincing a child to make and "believe" such false confessions traps the child in at least three forms of self-sabotaging ideas. The first self-sabotaging idea comes from the fact that such a “confession” teaches a child to “believe” they are inherently bad to begin with, rather than good. Such a “belief,” which only serves to convince the child they are born with the soul of an “ugly duckling” rather than a swan, operates to prevent the child from ever flying beyond the nest their religious group promises the child they (the child) needs to survive. The second self-sabotaging idea comes from the fact that, by only being able to maintain a connection to the group which they come to “believe” they need to survive (both socially and spiritually, in both this life and the next), the child is left to “struggle with their faith.” This means the child is left to struggle between a faith in the “belief” they know they need to remain a member of their group, a “belief” that requires them to “believe” they are guilty as charged, and doubts that such a charge is in anyway true, or even supported by any evidence whatsoever, other than a willingness to simply “believe” it is true. And the third self-sabotaging idea is that such a “belief,” and the inherent struggle that it instills as the child is taught to “work out their salvation in fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), can alienate the child from networking with those outside of their religious group for fear that doing so could jeopardize their salvation by infecting them with “doubts” about the veracity of the child’s “belief” in their own guilt. So, to protect their “belief” from exposure to ideas that may undermine its validity, and only cause the child that much more stress, the child may then both avoid larger social circles that expose them to a diversity of ideas and people, and obsess instead over finding ways to only ever prove to themselves that their “beliefs” are true, rather than just “beliefs,” which can be changed.
Incredibly, the “miraculous” cure for all of these problems is not more religion, but the simplest thing of all: teach your child they are innocent to begin with, and rather than living their whole life thinking they have the soul of an ugly duckling, they will learn to trust and love themselves and soar like one of the highest-flying birds in the world: the swan. In fact, the Whooper Swan can even fly as high as the peak of Mount Everest. And all you have to do to give your child the ability to fly this high is simply decide not to teach your child to sell their soul to be a part of a group by confessing to a crime they didn’t commit.
Comments
Post a Comment