What is my religious agenda?

Many here do not understand the religious agenda of anti-parental entitlement. The United Nations tends to have good things to say about my blog, and there is a reason why. This movement is classified by the UN as a rebellion movement, due to the fact that some advocates hate religion more than child abuse and/or conflate the two unnecessarily. But, at the same time, most child abuse is due to religious malpractice of some degree. Religious child abuse is a real term, but not all religion is child abuse. Some burdens the parent, in the right way that they pay penance. Pro-social self-crucifixion; pro-social self-punishment, to spare children. 

It is a sweet submission to children when you are a fundamentalist Christian and truly devoted to children's rights and anti-spanking, meaning a shivering, convicting submission where you struck with reverent fear of yourself in relation to the child, denoted by the Greek root word ψοβός (Latin: phobos) and refers to yielding to the needs of the child, and heed as a lawful command spake from God. It is the most comforting security, allowing yourself to be put in your place from above, yet from beneath.

The idea is to include and integrate this type of religious belief into the children's rights community. The common way to proselytize children's rights is to show the parents and adults what it is in their culture in terms of children's rights, and then they latch on that, and progress occurs. Peacekeeping narcissists claiming to be pedophiles are the only reason our movement isn't the same way. It is a war over the language. As an ACTUAL pedophile, I alone have the authority to retrieve religious terminology that has, for now, left us.

Children's rights/survivors was once a religious organization, back in the 1970s, and many of our values are based on Judaeo-Christian values, even if the bulk of our membership is secular and atheistic in orientation.

The idea is to proselytize the anti-spanking doctrine to ALL Christians, not just progressive ones, because there is a conservative case against punishing children  Most here are trying to become Christian again, but in an anti-punishment way. That's where I am now, and I laugh at pro-spanking parents and pastors sending me to Hell, by their terms, often saying "cool story, bro". I laugh at pro-spanking false doctrine as ridiculous. I myself follow the whole Bible, as applicable, meaning as can possibly be applied. I had a partial religious trauma, where I was scared by the rod verses, in Proverbs and in Hebrews. After researching their context, spurred by research by biblical scholars such as Samuel Martin, I came to better usage of those verses. The rod of correction, then, was mainly a symbol of justice, much like the scales of justice or a gavel, or perhaps more like handcuffs and red and blue lights. It was mostly a mental image, and was rarely carried out in the Old Testament context, and never under Christian church law...I have come to relate to Hebrews 12, and am often reminded of Hebrews 12:11 when enduring airborne abuse in the form of EEGs. Anyone who has had to endure such temporary mental hardship would understand. THAT is the proper usage of Hebrews 12. It's a morale that "you'll get through this" and "there is a light somewhere at the end of this dark tunnel".

The idea is for anti-spanking/gentle parenting to be added to the theology of many Christians in America, including conservative ones, as an attachment that conforms to their theology. Children's rights is sacrificing oneself, and putting oneself on the cross, in a way that is lower than your child, thus liberating them from the shackles and chains of adult oppression and tyranny. That IS compatible with our traditional Judaeo-Christian values. We just don't know that yet. Let's not ban religion, as we have a First Amendment and were founded on religious liberty. Let's instead give children religious liberty.