Trauma in Religion in Action - Morality and performance of duty

"the Commission is tasked with trying, amongst other things, to try to work out why this all happened" Justice Peter McClellan AM


orality and performance of duty are artificial measures that become necessary when something essential is lacking. The more successfully a person was denied access to his or her feelings in childhood, the larger the arsenal of intellectual weapons and the supply of moral prostheses has to be, because morality and a sense of duty are not sources of strength or fruitful soil for genuine affection. Blood does not flow in artificial limbs; they are for sale and can serve many masters. What was considered good yesterday can -- depending on the decree of government [religion] or party -- be considered evil and corrupt today, and vice versa.
But those who have spontaneous feelings can only be themselves. They have no other choice if they want to remain true to themselves.Rejection, ostracism, loss of love, and name calling will not fail to affect them; they will suffer as a result and will dread them, but once they have found their authentic self they will not want to lose it. And when they sense that something is being demanded of them to which their whole being says no, they cannot do it. They simply cannot.

This is the case with people who had the good fortune of being sure of their parents' love even if they had to disappoint certain parental expectations. Or with people who, although they did not have this good fortune to begin with, learned later  to risk the loss of love in order to regain their lost self. They will not be willing to relinquish it again for any price in the world. 

Alice Miller

The use of words such as "brother", "sister", "mother", "father" in religious contexts has enabled clergy to embed themselves into the psyche of a child at the earliest possible age - this is a false and dangerous association sold to unsuspecting children. When grown to become parents they are actively engaged in encouraging such a process unaware that they are in fact engaging in abandonment of their own child to the whims and fantasies of their clergy. It has been and remains one of the most powerful means the Church has in its arsenal of tools employed in its endeavor to form the minds of children.  No child safe entity should be permitted to self describe in these ways unless they can provide the best evidence and proof that this is 100% safe for the child.

The way this had been utilized by religious entities hijacks and substitutes the natural of a family. This is a profound boundary breach into the natural relationship dynamics of families and into the psyche of a child. The hijacking of this natural association and desire to belong provides clergy with an unfair advantage and deterministic(check) place of power and control over a child.  These actions make children the trade goods of Catholicism. In such an environment a child will always be at risk.

Amazingly religion sells these very ideals to families. The toxic result of religious systems selling personal development, safety, peace and love using the Bible as a guidebook must set the minds of psychopaths and child molesters across the globe afire with the scope and the range of tools combined with their personal control of the ultimate powers and forces of the universe is simply insurmountable for any child.

How the Royal Commission deals with those aspects of the failure of our institutions to acknowledge the reality of being human and the hijacking of the natural safety mechanisms inherent in being human. This failure has led to the generations long methodical and systematic abuse of children that the Royal Commission is investigating.

The current control methodologies can, must and will become toxic upon implementation as each and any step taken towards having control over the mind of another human being is a toxic intention in and of itself.

When you have been successfully raised in this unreasonable, unethical and immoral manner it becomes an imperative of the life of the individual to firstly ensure that their own children are inculcated and bonded into the same system that they were hijacked into. Every child has the right to be protected from this form of psychological entrapment.

Once a child is touched by the toxicity of these dynamics they are deeply damaged and harmed by the psychological entrapment of religious superstition and fantastic claims.

There is an horrifically obscene reality when we permit whole generations to grow, mature and further the power and control this gives to what can only be mildly described as men and women who themselves have had their minds successfully hijacked in such a way.

Control, contact and the influence of children is essential for the continuation of these gross human rights obscenities. Control, contact and influence of children must be stripped from every vestige of religion so that they can be raised in a safe nurturing environment where they can be upon reaching adulthood free to choose a world view that appeals to them.

No child exposed to the threat of hell or the intrusion into their mind of an all knowing, all seeing god can ever be free to make that choice unless we take proactive steps to protect them.  That religion and the religious know they are incapable of relinquishing this control has been repeatedly stated throughout the hearings of the Royal Commission.

The Royal Commission can never claim to have answered the question as to why all of this happened unless it gives real weight and real protection to these problems faced by children raised in a religious environment.

On the one hand we acknowledge that the existence of a god is unknowable while at the same time our governments permit religion to proffer with impunity the unfounded claims of religion that they know the answer to these unknowable questions and to not only permit but to provide exemptions, laws and funds to support and to protect the perpetuation of these deceptive and  harmful cultural practices to appease the insatiable desire for the control of the minds of children and their bodies on into adulthood to ensure the perpetual control by the Church and the religious and there is no god which will help and protect them. 
Thankfully that power has been put into the hands of Justice Peter McClellan. History will show if he too has been duped into abandoning future Australian children to the control of religion from the moment of their arrival into this world. 

It can never be justified that demanding enforcement of the claimed rights of religion for the ownership and control of children can ever be for the personal good of the child or for that matter children and society collectively.
“Only a trauma informed and evidence based method can be effective in countering the toxic effects of a superstition and mythology based education.”

Most current version **Catholic Version 2.02.9