Pastor Sean Harris Tries to Explain His Antigay Comments to an Atheist

[Ian David]

Justin Griffith: "But you wouldn't literally use a rod would you?"
Sean Harris: "No, of course not. We may use some instrument of discipline in a careful and appropriate way. Depending on the age of the child, depending on the weight of the child."

This was filmed the day of our protest against Pastor Sean Harris' statements that endorsed 'punching the gay away'. It starts off with a genuine retraction - he's been doing this all week. But then it gets weird... At one point he starts describing how to beat a child according to a variety of factors "Which instrument, how much the child weighs, how old the child is..."

We also talked about his tax-exempt vote-sermons. He said that he checked with his lawyers, 'just to make sure'. He admits that churches have an enormous influence on voting, and I don't think he realizes that they aren't supposed to! Before the tape ran out on the camera, we got into a hypothetical conversation about 'what if his son was gay'... that was depressing.

This was a wild ride.

Hat-tip to:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/05/08/pastor-sean-harris-tries-to-explain-his-antigay-comments-to-an-atheist/

[Enrique]

1. the question of striking children was only a part of it

for me it was the intensity of his hatred of homosexuality that was the issue, the fact that he would talk that way about it. He looks calm in this video now, but the original video suggested some kind of abnormal psychology in Pastor Harris.

[TrogL]

3. You mean like authoritarianism approach sociopathology?

[TrogL]

2. He's taking his cues from the "train up your child" crowd

[tanyev]

4. Spends a lot of time thinking about the best way to beat a child, huh?

Including how not to leave marks?

[chervilant]

5. "Spank" not "Beat"?!?

I am concerned when I see adults minimize or denigrate efforts to address the unnecessary and deleterious, yet vociferously defended physical assaults on our children. Gelles, Straus and Steinmetz contend there are serious unintended consequences when physical violence is used against children:

1) Children learn to associate love with violence, since those who love them are allowed to hit them.

2) Children learn that when something is really important, it justifies the use of physical violence (PBJ in my precious DVD player?! I'm gonna BEATURASS!!!).

3) Recurrent incidences of physical punishment become a fundamental part of a child's personality and world view, readily generalized to adult intimate relationships, or considered a normative, justifiable response when the now adult individual feels threatened or angry.

After more than twenty-five years of advocacy for survivors of relationship violence, I can assure you that spanking our children perpetuates a poisonous pedagogy that saddles a significant portion of our population with trust issues, poor conflict resolution skills, marginal interpersonal skills and aggression issues. Relationship violence is still a ubiquitous problem globally, and most of our teens think that their intimate partners are justified in slapping them if they've done or said something 'wrong.'

Therefore, any attempts to effect a structured, sincere, and relentless effort to eradicate such damaging 'parenting' strategies is a good thing. Some of us might even perceive it as a dire necessity.

For more information, read anything by Alice Miller (Thou Shalt not be Aware, For your own Good, and The Drama of the Gifted Child, are three excellent choices), and read Magical Child by Joseph Chilton Pearce.

Oh, and, consider this: children are the ONLY members of our species that you can strike with impunity. If you dare to hit another adult--and are caught--you are sure to face serious consequences.

[lumpy]

6. The jackass of a preacher sure changed his tone to oily and condescending.

Like a little boy caught with his hand in the candy jar.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. He seems super bitter that his own words were re-broadcast outside his ditto-head circle.

Bummer yo.

[marble falls]

8. He wants the state out of his church but wants to interject his church into the state.