The misunderstanding of religion

[HoreTore]

I love how "religion" often only covers Christianity and Islam, not Buddhism or Jainism.

That's simply because we're from the US and western europe. We've had no contact with any other religions.

[Vladimir]

That's simply because we're from the US and western europe. We've had no contact with any other religions.

An error in translation? Religion may be otherworldly but they're all from the same planet.

[HoreTore]

An error in translation? Religion may be otherworldly but they're all from the same planet.

Hm? Our countries have had next to zero influence from buddhism or any other eastern religion. Makes sense that we neither know anything about them nor care about them.

[Mooks]

Hm? The people I know and me have had next to zero influence from buddhism or any other eastern religion. Makes sense that we neither know anything about them nor care about them.

Fixed for you.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think the point of the article is more along the lines that atheists should not be so fiercely opposed to religion, to point out that religion has it's benefits and that there is a reason for people to be religious.

Yes, religion has its benefits. I am not even convinced that society is better off without religion.
I am also not convinced that society wouldn't be better off if we had still remained hunter-gatherers.

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...)

All the positive attributes the author ascribes to religion - I, for one, would not argue they are false - would still hold true if Christianity was changed for believe in the force. Now what kind of mental opium is that? I myself am not good in pretending that something is true when it isn't. You yourself say as much. You have changed religion, yet continue to go to church. For the social bonds.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

[KukriKhan]

Hmmm... Louis makes a tough argument. As usual.

I point out the wide variety of actual beliefs, and attachment to dogma, of any individual religious person. Their ideas about a creator, saviors, saints, sins, and the whole shebang are widely divergent, even among regular church-goers.

So maybe "religion" is two things (and serves 2 purposes):

1) a set of beliefs and moral imperatives held by individual humans that adhere only to the limits of their imaginations and
2) a Church, a community, of similarly-, but not identically-, minded others; because we like company and reassurance, and reinforcement.

-edit-
And Louis is right, mostly: #2 above could be (and is) served equally well through being a member of any sub-group; pub regular for example. Backroom regular, for another.

[Reenk Roink]

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

And you were doing so well until here...

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right.

Louis, I always like your posts even if we disagree, but I think you should be more careful that you have got things right if you are going to mention individual members. I have not been indoctrinated into any beliefs. As a child, baptism, weddings, and funerals were the sum of my involvement with the Kirk. I was raised by one parent who is nominally religious, another who is practically a militant atheist. In fact, the ridicule and later grudging acceptance I have gotten from friends and family has been important in God breaking me down. Also, I have not been indoctrinated into anything since becoming a Christian, you only need to look at another thread to see what I think of the Kirk of late. As to why I came to the beliefs I have which are similar to those historically held by the Kirk, that is because of my studying of the English Puritans and nothing to do with national identity/whatever you think it is, and that forged the direction in my studying of theology etc. You might even say I did everything of my own free will...

I'm sure the other people you mentioned have not been indoctrinated either, but they can speak for themselves.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...)

Yes, I could live a lie. I could believe that there is a single self inside my head (an illusion according to neuroscience) and that I do things because that self just happened to choose them. You could do this as well.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'

We tell kids fairy tales all the time, and not just santa claus. You could tell your kids star wars is real, but they'd quit believing you pretty quick, unless that belief and the community provided enough of a benefit for them. I think it's easy to depict religious people as drugged and indoctrinated into believing what they do, but the fact is people have a natural tendency towards religious belief. Many atheists turn towards some kind of spirituality. Many people stick with their religion even though they realize that the bible is not factually accurate. If teaching your kids christianity was no different than teaching them star wars there would be far fewer religious people.


Besides the fact that parents indoctrinate their children to a certain extent no matter what their religious beliefs...I don't think it has as big effect as you think. More comes down to genetics and random experiences than to parents, siblings, teachers and peer group.

And Louis is right, mostly: #2 above could be (and is) served equally well through being a member of any sub-group; pub regular for example. Backroom regular, for another.

But then you have the pub, the backroom, your friends, your workplace, and family--so there is no unified message. Your parents can think abortion is murder, your liberal workplace can think everyone should get one, the people at the pub think people should make up your own minds. The strength and weakness of this is that people tend to make up there own minds more often.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, religion has its benefits. I am not even convinced that society is better off without religion.
I am also not convinced that society wouldn't be better off if we had still remained hunter-gatherers.

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...)

All the positive attributes the author ascribes to religion - I, for one, would not argue they are false - would still hold true if Christianity was changed for believe in the force. Now what kind of mental opium is that? I myself am not good in pretending that something is true when it isn't. You yourself say as much. You have changed religion, yet continue to go to church. For the social bonds.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

I refute you on two points.

1. I will teach my children what I believe to be true, if my beliefs made me deluded in your eyes, so be it.

2. If anything I was brought up a Methodist, but my parents told me God didn't exist before I was 10.

For the record, I don't believe in teaching people morally bankrupt values in order to make them, "happy adults". For starters, it doesn't work because the facade always cracks and you're left with a damaged and mal-adjusted human being.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And you were doing so well until here...

The quote is apocryphical.

I have here an elder scroll that ends with:
Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Teaching children, with all the best intentions of the parents of course, a moral system based on an ancient books and its derived theology, can lead to trouble. For the system to function, the book will have to be held sacred, above criticism. This leads to uncritical thinking, or even worse, stiltifying dogma. Either one accepts the truth, or one doesn't. Both are problematic.

(If George Lucas can tinker with his creative output, so can I)


Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.

If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.

Louis, I feel the author would agree with you completely. His statement about religious people being happier etc was not meant to say we should consider becoming religious but rather we should consider what leads to that happiness.

My conclusion is not that secular liberal societies should be made more religious and conservative in a utilitarian bid to increase happiness, charity, longevity, and social capital. Too many valuable rights would be at risk, too many people would be excluded, and societies are so complex that it's impossible to do such social engineering and get only what you bargained for. My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.

This is somewhat fallacious, because contemporary morality is based on the course our society has taken and until relatively recently Christianity was very much the beating heart of our culture and accepted norm. This also has nothing to do with Syrians, but with Romans, Hellenists, and Hellenised Jews.

They shared quite a bit with a 21st Century American.

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

It is not the belief system, but the manner of belief. I present Richard Darkins as exibit A.

Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.

People who are religious hold their beliefs to be true, so they aren't morally bankrupt.

If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.

This I agree with, the author advocates nothing.

However, neither do you. Like every arguement against belief in God your has zero traction. Your whole arguement assumes that none of us who believe are actually write, if one of us is you are in big trouble.

[miotas]

Now you fellas are just gonna think I'm taking the piss, but I am quite serious. Sport is the solution. Here in Australia only about 10% of the population is actually religious, ie going to church, and that includes all religions, not just christianity. Yet we still have activities that bind the population together, and these are sporting events, you could quite truthfully say that most sports fans follow their teams religiously.

Most children are indoctrinated, from when they are only a few years old, into believing that they should always follow their team regardless of how well they may happen to be performing. Something that mirrors religious people blindly following their faith. And while sport may produce friendly rivalries, it never inspires outright hatred. Sport produces very accepting groups, 2 people can sit down together and have a beer together while their teams beat the out of each other. Basically sport gives all the grouping benefits that one gets from religion without the negative exclusion side effects.

You could almost say that we've done what Louis was saying with his comments about the force and replaced religion with sport.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, I always like your posts even if we disagree, but I think you should be more careful that you have got things right if you are going to mention individual members.

That 'you 'know' God exists' is a direct quote from you yourself, from several months ago. (Don't make me drag it up!)

You don't think it at all uncoincidental that a Scotsman would reach the conclusion that the Scottish Kirk is the right church?

People who are religious hold their beliefs to be true, so they aren't morally bankrupt.

I don't think the religious are morally bankrupt. In my first post in this thread, I quoted some of my thoughts about how my aunt, a firm atheist, requested a Catholic burial. I rather enjoyed and admired the tradition, community values, passing on the line, the ritual. I partook in the rite. I have very much mixed feelings about it.

Louis, I feel the author would agree with you completely.

I hate it when that happens.

No, I know. I don't disagree with him either. In my opinion, the loss of religion (I'm urban, atheist European) has not been entirely positive. (But I am not sure where the line is here between religion and tradition, smaller social circles, more community values, involuntary social bonds etc. The author goes some way to describing this connection)
I am making a pre-emptive strike against those who would triumphantly regard the article as a WMD for more Christianity.

Like every arguement against belief in God your has zero traction. Your whole arguement assumes that none of us who believe are actually right, if one of us is you are in big trouble

I am not necessarly arguing God doesn't exist. More that it wouldn't matter if he did or didn't for the arguments brought up here in favour of religion.

Also, there is also one fallacious Christian argument in your post: No, if God does turn out to exist, I still would not worship him. Before He can finish saying 'and these harpsicord-playing Cherubs don't have sex eithe..', I'll have Him guillotined and myself crowned as Emperor. Then I'll pounce earth for forty days with floods and earthquakes for giggles.

[Marshal Murat]

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

Some religious people are moderate, some aren't. You cannot say that all atheists are "free-thinking" without excluding some of the "fashionable Atheists" and the "Crazy Atheists".

Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality?

Religion (in the beginning at least) was imposed morality. Hinduism teaches everyone that they have a place in society based on their caste, and imposes social order and mores on everyone regardless of age/sex/level of intelligence.

My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.

The problem (if you accept the Authors theory) with "suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, enhancing human flourishing" is if the organization is "conceptual" then those who organize the group decide what is "fair" and while no doubt spurring innovation and free-thinking, it cannot hold itself together as a group unless it has some over-arching system of control (how do anarchist hold meetings?). If embracing all groups, then the system and group is held together, probably at the price of change to adapt. So early societies create, through human intelligence, a method of binding the community (religion) while also ensuring that there are freedoms within the community.

While "atheism" may hold many alluring points (there is no God, it's all fairy tales, think critically), there is no incentive to "behave morally" if there is no reason to do so because of hell/purgatory/karma/etc. One could establish a group-control mechanism (honor code), but that only works if everyone agrees to it and abides by it. Game theory tripe that I don't care to read about or something.

[InsaneApache]

So how do we free thinkers help the brainwashed taked off their blinkers? Tis a hard one.

[Husar]

Yes, religion has its benefits. I am not even convinced that society is better off without religion.
I am also not convinced that society wouldn't be better off if we had still remained hunter-gatherers.

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...)

All the positive attributes the author ascribes to religion - I, for one, would not argue they are false - would still hold true if Christianity was changed for believe in the force. Now what kind of mental opium is that? I myself am not good in pretending that something is true when it isn't. You yourself say as much. You have changed religion, yet continue to go to church. For the social bonds.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

Well, I grew up like that myself, yet I changed. Chrisitans even say you have to constantly read the bible and surround yourself with other christians so as to not lose focus, heh. One of the things that made me wonder a bit. Part of the change though came when I moved away and started to live alone.
I don't see the problem with letting people believe fairy tales though, they do anyway. Have you never seen those people who run around feeling enlightened but then make silly jokes about the number 13 etc. as if they actually thought it was true but they were afraid to admit it? So many people don't just drop religion or spirituality, they just find something new, and in a way they may actually need it. Not all people are the same and different people need different things to make them happy. There was even a guy on TV who said he found a relation between the religiosity of people and how extensive/active a certain part of the brain behind the left ear is. Unfortuantely I don't remember his name. I just think religion and atheism might not just be a simple matter of choice and truth or fairy tales, like being gay seems to be not just a matter of choice as religious people often claim.
There might be very deep reasons that some people believe in this or that and others don't.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That 'you 'know' God exists' is a direct quote from you yourself, from several months ago. (Don't make me drag it up!)

You don't think it at all uncoincidental that a Scotsman would reach the conclusion that the Scottish Kirk is the right church?

Bah! Knowing God exists is just part of the nature of the faith for many people, and does not mean we were indoctrinated into believing it.

However, I do not 'know' that every point of doctrine I hold to is correct. Maybe we should only be baptised as adults, maybe we really do have free will. I also do not think the Kirk is the 'right church', I nearly joined a Baptist church but the guitar-playing and hand-clapping scared me away. I disagree with the Kirk on a great deal of issues, I simply attend its services because it is what is available, it is nothing more special than a regional manifestation of God's universal church. The historically Calvinist views of the Kirk which I believe in are just a happy coincidence from my having studied Puritan theologians. There's no indoctrination involved, can't you at least concede the possibility that not all religious people are brainwashed?

[Reenk Roink]

Louis, I basically liked your entire analysis on the article, I certainly agree with your holistic gist that the benefits mentioned in the articles could be achieved by swapping belief systems, though I will squabble that not any "myth" (I use the term in the technical sense and not in the colloquial way that carries the negative connotations including being false) can suffice. It takes quite a myth to carry out the social impact described like ancient polytheistic systems (and Hinduism which survives in the present), Buddhism, and the Abrahamic traditions. The status of the force as being worth of a myth is up to debate.

Just thought the last part was a bit too extreme as just a cursory examination of some of the religious folk that frequent the Backroom would lead one to conclude it is improbable that they are simply mimicking what they were taught as children. I also don't think some myths are (totally) false as you believe it to be, so I think we can have our cake and eat it in certain cases. But you are entitled to creative liberties.

I also don't believe the author was at all trying to promote actual metaphysical truth value of any religion in the first place but your arguments would certainly be cogent though if that was being done.

Lastly the sport angle brought up is quite interesting. I'll point out that there is a course being taught at Université de Montréal on the Montreal Canadiens (hockey team) as a religion (in their theology department).

[HoreTore]

Fixed for you.

So.... You have an intimate knowledge of Buddhism, and you've gained that knowledge through first-hand experience in your own community....?

Hey, good for you if you have, but I do believe you're in the minority here then.

[Centurion1]

I think as an average westerner i have pretty good access to eastern religions. i know a lot about Shintoism, Buddhism, one of my moms friends is hindi, Muslims (one of my friends is Muslim), my grandmother follows a lot of "Confucianism" (more like a life choice than a religion).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, Louis completely missed my points, but nevermind.

About Sport: In Britain a lot of men go through cycles of rage and despair when their football team loses. There are cases of impotence and abuce for people with teams on long winning streaks. Sport provides too transient a payoff, and it's too competative, it can't even hold individual nations together.

[Rhyfelwyr]

About Sport: In Britain a lot of men go through cycles of rage and despair when their football team loses. There are cases of impotence and abuce for people with teams on long winning streaks. Sport provides too transient a payoff, and it's too competative, it can't even hold individual nations together.

And that's not even going into the Old Firm (Rangers and Celtic FC for those wondering), apparently cases of domestic abuse skyrocket after every match.

[HoreTore]

Well, Louis completely missed my points, but nevermind.

About Sport: In Britain a lot of men go through cycles of rage and despair when their football team loses. There are cases of impotence and abuce for people with teams on long winning streaks. Sport provides too transient a payoff, and it's too competative, it can't even hold individual nations together.

"Some say football is a matter of life and death. I'm disappointed by that attitude; it is far more important than that."

Oh, and Rhyfelwyr, perhaps you should keep christianity's track record on domestic violence in mind when making such statements....

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh, and Rhyfelwyr, perhaps you should keep christianity's track record on domestic violence in mind when making such statements....

I don't think you can blame that on Christianity, is there any society in history where domestic violence has not happened, never mind being fairly commonplace?

[HoreTore]

I don't think you can blame that on Christianity, is there any society in history where domestic violence has not happened, never mind being fairly commonplace?

And yet you blame it on a football match?

[Marshal Murat]

And yet you blame it on a football match?

I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, disappointed because the local priest didn't say the sermon that he wanted. That hardly inspires serious domestic violence like the disappointment in the local team, if this is really the time for a discussion of religion in relation to domestic violence.

[HoreTore]

I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, disappointed because the local priest didn't say the sermon that he wanted. That hardly inspires serious domestic violence like the disappointment in the local team, if this is really the time for a discussion of religion in relation to domestic violence.

Nah, not that situation. But how 'bout this one:

"I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, excited because the local priest said that a wife is to be obedient to her husband, and that the husband should feel free to punish her as he sees fit."

And don't say that's never happened.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nah, not that situation. But how 'bout this one:

"I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, excited because the local priest said that a wife is to be obedient to her husband, and that the husband should feel free to punish her as he sees fit."

And don't say that's never happened.

Hardly the same, your notional Catholic doesn't walk in the door burning up with rage and looking for something to take it out on.

Also, I'd like to see you cite teaching that says the husband can, "punish her as he sees fit", generally the clergy were more interested in limiting domestic violence; even if you don't think those limitations went far enough.