Religion
Related: About this forumShe sent them to heaven.
According to police, Ms. Schlemmer, a former teacher, called 911 Tuesday morning and reported that her children might have drowned in the bathtub. She later told police that she sat on the two younger boys in the bathtub of water so she could send them to heaven, police said.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/north/2014/04/03/Woman-s/stories/201404030272
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
doxydad
(1,363 posts)Here's the lives of a couple kids snuffed out due to fanatical religious insanity. Creeps me out.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If she hadn't been indoctrinated to believe in a glorious afterlife, she would have drowned them to send them to...school. Or the store. Or somewhere.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)
that, in light of these events, may be read as murder attempts: the child left locked in the 112F car, and the two children run over by the van. There is an indication of mens rea: after submerging the children under water until they stopped struggling, the woman changed into dry clothes before reporting that the children might have drowned. Her explanation has sinced varied: she later said that she thought she's be a better mother to the oldest if the two younger were gone and that the two younger would be in heaven; still later she said that crazy voices made her do it
She might be non compos mentis but there are other possibilities:
Wouldn't it be a fuckin tragedy if this brat baked to death in a hot car? Crap. That didn't work. Well, wouldn't it be a fuckin tragedy if somebody accidentally ran over these two brats? Crap. That didn't work either. Well, wouldn't it just be the biggest fuckin tragedy if these two fuckin brats accidentally drowned in the fuckin bathtub? Now I change into dry clothes and call 911. Crap. This isn't working either. I'll tell them I wanted to be a better mother to the oldest. Is it working now? I'll tell them I think the boys are in heaven. Crap. That didn't work. I'll tell them the crazy voices made me do it
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)complete with dialog, and spammed this thread with everything else you could find that doesn't mention her own stated motivation.
She sent them to heaven. I'm told that is a far better place than here. She apparantly thought so too.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'll stick with the what the police said she said her motive was. Seems a lot less invented.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)if the other two weren’t around ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121083#post6
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Please research psychological "denial" and "blackouts."
Often your mind simply blacks out things it cannot face.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)was a better place, it's a shame she didn't send herself there and let her kids live out their lives here.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)Chief Robert Amann said doctors at UPMC Passavant-Cranberry contacted police April 16, 2013, after the children were brought there for treatment.
"Mrs. Schlemmer advised the doctors that she had accidentally run over her two children while moving her vehicle at her parents' home in Marshall Township," the chief said in a statement.
The Allegheny County district attorney's office has said it was not contacted during that investigation and reports from Northern Regional regarding that incident are now part of the homicide investigation.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)if the other two weren’t around ...
McCandless Mother Denied Bail, On Suicide Watch
April 3, 2014 12:22 PM
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)another in a bathtub backed into the boys with her van 10 months ago ... And court records show she left a child unattended in a hot car in 2009 ...
Pastor: Mom in bathtub case once hit kids with van
April 3, 2014
Associated Press
... Court records don't indicate which child was in the car, but police said the car's interior was 112 degrees when officers arrived. The child wasn't injured and Schlemmer paid a small fine, according to court papers ...
'They seemed to be doing well'
By Snejana Farberov
Published: 08:29 EST, 3 April 2014
Updated: 09:01 EST, 3 April 2014
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)she reportedly sat on top of them ...
McCandless Mother Denied Bail, On Suicide Watch
April 3, 2014 12:22 PM
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)reckless endangerment, aggravated assault and tampering with physical evidence, for allegedly hiding her wet clothes in a trash bag and then hiding that bag under three other bags ...
Police: 'Voices' told mother to sit on sons in tub
By JOE MANDAK
Associated Press
April 02, 2014
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm sure it must mean something.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)Apt.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)
goldent
(1,582 posts)Oh dear.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Why are you religionistas so illogical? You must be mentally ill.
(What did I leave out?)
okasha
(11,573 posts)and cognitive dissonance.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)Why am I always the only one that sees the volkswagens everywhere?
If the Illuminati paid Sasquatch to drive his volkswagen through Area 51, spewing deadly chemtrails behind him, everybody but me would pretend not to see it!
Volkwagens, people! Wake up and smell the volkwagens!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Can anyone prove her wrong? If not, we have no right to say her beliefs are false. Or so I've been told.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)in the bathtub — would differ radically from what she would later tell police ... “I, uh, let my 6- and 3-year old sons play in the bathtub a little bit before their bath this morning,” she said, breathing heavily. “And, uh, I was, and then I went to, to the restroom and, um, took longer than I should have or planned and then I came back. They’re unconscious” ... She yelled for her elderly mother, who was in the home at the time, and arriving paramedics to come upstairs. “Upstairs, Mom! Is Dad still here?” she asked. “I’ve got an emergency. Upstairs, sir” ...
911 call paints picture of Pittsburgh-area mother accused of drowning son
Woman remained calm while talking to call-taker
April 2, 2014 11:42 PM
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)a county behavioral evaluation and denied her bond on charges of homicide, attempted homicide, aggravated assault and other counts. He granted a request by defense attorney Michael Machen to allow a defense-hired psychiatrist to evaluate Schlemmer ... Dr. Christine Martone, chief psychiatrist for the county's Behavior Assessment Unit, would not comment on specific cases. But she said that behavioral evaluations are assessments for determining competency to stand trial and making treatment recommendations. Depending on the assessment, defendants can be transferred out of the jail to hospitals for treatment, she said ...
McCandless mom, accused of drowning son, on suicide watch
By Margaret Harding
Published: Thursday, April 3, 2014, 12:30 p.m.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)critically injuring the other by sitting on them in a bathtub, including whether child protection agencies could have prevented the death ... The county agency is required to review Luke's death, Gillis said, and must issue a report within 90 days. But the state is also reviewing whether the county agency might have prevented the drowning ... Northern Regional Police Chief Robert Amann said in an emailed statement Thursday that his officers did a "complete and thorough investigation," although he acknowledged to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Wednesday that his officers were unable to determine how badly Luke and Daniel were hurt by the van. That happened because the boys were in a Pittsburgh hospital, not a nearby one, he said ... Gillis could not immediately say whether the broader report state welfare officials are doing will also include whether county caseworkers handled the van incident correctly ...
Welfare agencies probing boy's bathtub drowning at McCandless home
Laurel Schlemmer, 40, accused of drowning 1 son, critically injuring another
UPDATED 1:02 PM EDT Apr 03, 2014
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)because she didn’t know how to perform the procedure ...
Pennsylvania mom says ‘crazy voices’ drove her to drown children
Laurel Michelle Schlemmer, 40, of McCandless, Pa., was arrested for drowning her 3-year-old son Luke and critically injuring his 6-year-old brother Daniel. She allegedly told detectives that 'crazy voices' told her to sit on the children in a bathtub.
BY Joe Kemp
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 9:33 AM
Updated: Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 4:56 PM
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)She backed her van over the two youngest children less than a year ago
She put the two youngest children in the bathub then sat on them until they stopped moving
Then she changed into dry clothes
She called 911, describing the incident as an accidental drowning
She initially told police she hadn't administered CPR because she didn't know how
Later she told police she had drowned the two youngest because she wanted to be a better mother to the oldest and said she thought the boys were in heaven
Then she claimed crazy voices made her do it
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #25)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)NT
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That's an interesting omission from "what we know so far."
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In many of these threads, the tactic deployed seems to be to spam the thread with many posts all more or less the same all covering the reports, or at least excerpts from the reports that leave out the religious motivation. I guess the belief employed is that the quantity itself is some sort of proof, as in all such gallops.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I knew there was a name for that tactic; forgot about it!
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)She put the two youngest children in the bathub then sat on them until they stopped moving. Then she changed into dry clothes. She called 911, describing the incident as an accidental drowning. She initially told police she hadn't administered CPR because she didn't know how
Later she told police she had drowned the two youngest because she wanted to be a better mother to the oldest and said she thought the boys were in heaven. Then she claimed crazy voices made her do it
So her children have been at risk of life-threatening "accidents" in the past. It will matter whether these prior incidents are now re-evaluated in light of the drownings. These incidents might be evidence of some psychiatric illness: the car incident might have been an attempt to produce an ill child on whom she could demonstratively dote (or whose injury she could demonstratively mourn), and the van incident might have been similarly motivated. The eventual explanation to police, that she drowned the children because she wanted to be a better mother to her oldest, might support such an interpretation
But the facts, that she changed into dry clothes and initially described the drowning as a tragic accident in her 911 call, will suggest (on a legal view) an attempt to conceal the crime, hence some awareness that the act was wrong, which argues against legal insanity
A natural guess would be that she confessed to the drowning after police confronted her with the garbage bag containing her wet clothes. The excuse -- that she drowned the children because she wanted to be a better mother to her oldest -- is odd: it sounds somewhat like "Was that wrong? I was just trying to be a better mother!" so might indicate some real mental defect or might simply be a reflexive attempt to reduce her own culpability as she realizes she has lost control of the situation
One should like to know whether the statements -- that she drowned the children because she wanted to be a better mother to her oldest and that she thought the boys were in heaven -- form a single utterance, or whether they occurred with additional conversation separating them during the on-scene police interviews and were simply condensed together in a subsequent police statement
It is unclear whether her (variously reported) statement that the two boys were in heaven, or were better off in heaven, was part of her statement that she wanted she wanted to be a better mother to her oldest, or whether it was a separate statement: it is consistent with known patterns of altruistic filicide -- though there is no such "altruistic" statements seem to have been noted in the earlier car or van incidents, since (if noted) they would have produced some alarm. Reasonable interpretation of this statement would vary depending on interpretation of the prior incidents
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That is completely different than
The first one is a statement from the police. The second is spin to avoid the religious motivation.
Which brings me back to my original question:
Why did you avoid the religious motivation.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)Welfare agencies probing boy's bathtub drowning at McCandless home
Laurel Schlemmer, 40, accused of drowning 1 son, critically injuring another
UPDATED 1:02 PM EDT Apr 03, 2014
Notice that link was already available upthread in #23. If you regard the story as important enough to deserve comments, maybe you should consider reading various accounts available in order to learn what is known about it. So far, I've provided about eight (8) distinct links on this story, in an effort to provide details and background. It's really not my fault if you won't or can't read the links provided
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You went out of your way to not include that. I don't have to read your Google-fu to know that you didn't include that reason in your posts.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)sick. Poor babies.
Response to Warren Stupidity (Original post)
Post removed
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And you wonder why people have problems with you.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Such a good Christian.
Response to trotsky (Reply #39)
Post removed
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And thank goodness there are weekly reminders, otherwise we might forget this valuable lesson.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that religion isn't always a force for good and doesn't always cause people to hold hands and sing inspirational songs. It is often a force for bad.
Why do we need to remember that? So that when the FFRF and others fight against religion in places it shouldn't belong, we don't knee jerk and call them horrible because all we think about religion is kumbaya.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I think murder is bad, and if religion inspires murder, than it is a force for bad.
Bryant
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Sorry if I read that wrong. Been a long week.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It was definitely laced with sarcasm.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)But I'm fine admitting I'm wrong if I am. Though I'm probably not, though.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)He thinks he is making an ironic point. He is willfully or not seemingly ignorant of the role religion has played throughout human history with respect to the killing of humans. Forget obviously deranged people killing for religious reasons, supposedly sane people kill and have killed for religious reasons for the entire history of human civilization. They do so with all the conviction and moral certainty demonstrated by the obviously delusional, but we dare not state the obvious.
rug
(82,333 posts)struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)In December, Sharon Flanagan of WV was found guilty in Allegheny county of drowning her 3yo son in a bathtub at Best Western in 2012 in Green Tree PA, about 15 miles from McCandless where Schlemmer lives
Tonya Thomas of Clarksburg PA is currently on trial in Indiana county on charges of drowning her 13mo son in a bathtub, about 50 miles from where Schlemmer lives; her husband is charged with endangerment
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Just curious.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)a common motive in filicide
The original charges against Thomas were thrown out in May; prosecutors refiled as third-degree murder in August; Thomas originally accepted an involuntary manslaughter plea bargain but changed her mind recently. In PA, criminal homicide is to "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being": first-degree murder means intentional killing; second-degree murder is murder committed during commission of a felony; and all other criminal homicides are third-degree. So it seems Thomas is charged with "knowingly, recklessly or negligently" causing the death. The prosecution claim that Thomas "went down to a whole different floor of the household and left her child with no supervision" rather closely matches what Schlemmer claimed in her own 911 call
... The woman who drowned her son in a local hotel bathtub has been sentenced to life in prison without parole. Sharon Flanagan had been found guilty of first-degree murder in September. Prosecutors said Flanagan killed the 2-year-old boy because she was upset her ex-husband had been granted 70 percent custody ...
... Thomas eventually agreed to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child, avoiding a trial on the more serious charge of homicide. The deal would have meant less than a year of jail time. On Monday, the DA said Thomas withdrew her guilty plea and will go to trial at a later date on a charge of third-degree murder ... District Attorney Pat Dougherty said Thomas was giving her son, Ryden, and two of her other children a bath at home in White Township on Feb. 2, 2013, and she left them unattended in the tub while she went elsewhere in the house. "It's not a case of mommy needs to run out of the room for a minute and grab something," Dougherty said after the charges were filed. "She went down to a whole different floor of the household and left her child with no supervision" ...
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I asked whether or not they believe in heaven.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)based on whatever you learn
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...thinking perhaps that in your spamtastical Gish galloping you may have come across information relevant to the discussion. Obviously, I was mistaken.
The cogent argument being made is thus:
Put yourself in the shoes of a distressed, perhaps mentally unstable mother contemplating filicide. Would the concept of heaven -- a perfect, blissful existence beyond the grave, a far better existence than you could ever hope to provide your children -- deter you from your established course of action, or encourage it? Or neither?
Some would argue the temporariness of life is what makes it valuable, that it is cheapened by sincere belief in eternal existence.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Perhaps she wanted to rid the world of bad people by horribly drowning them. Just like God did.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)she originally claimed the drowning was accidental and occurred while she was elsewhere in the house; she later said she drowned the younger children because she could be a better mother to the older child if they were gone and that she thought they were better off in heaven; she also said "crazy voices" told her to sit on the boys in the tub
Not only do none of these mention Noah, none even seem to incorporate recognizable elements of the Noah narrative -- or any recognizable interpretations of the Noah narrative
rug
(82,333 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)The sacrificial part anyways. Thats what i instantly thought of.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)she originally claimed the drowning was accidental and occurred while she was elsewhere in the house; she later said she drowned the younger children because she could be a better mother to the older child if they were gone and that she thought they were better off in heaven; she also said "crazy voices" told her to sit on the boys in the tub
Not only do none of these mention Abraham, none even seem to incorporate recognizable elements of the Abraham narrative -- or any recognizable interpretations of the Abraham narrative
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I figured the 'voices' ( i have had the same issue, i got zyprexa) that told her to sit on the child in the tub were from god and, like Abraham, she was told to sacrifice her children by god. I find it to be an apt interpretation. I do not think you suffer from a diagnosed mental illness, i do, several, including visual and aural hallucinations. It's possible that she did hear voices and they told her to lie.
'god' used to talk to me during my psychosis. As a non believer, i knew it was not god. Schizophrenia runs in my family, so i'm lucky.
Voices used to tell me to do crazy shit. Mostly kill myself. Almost worked once, but life support technology has improved so much.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Looks like they are waiting on the mental evaluation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I cannot objectively prove she DIDN'T hear the voice of god telling her to do it.
Not in a sense any more meaningful than I could disprove the existence of any god.
That is precisely how much (or rather how little) evidence there is on such topics. I can't even point to ANY Abrahamic religion and say, 'nah, god wouldn't do that'. Shit, it's right there in their stupid fucking book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
Maybe this woman just didn't get the 'just kidding' celestial fax in time? Who can say?
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)locked in a 112F car when he was a toddler; that she backed her van over her two youngest less than a year ago; and that she forcibly submerged her two youngest in the bathtub until they stopped struggling, then changed into dry clothes, went to a different part of the house, and then called 911 to report that her children had accidentally drowned while she was elsewhere
And if the prosecution argues from those facts -- as evidence of premeditation followed by attempt to conceal the crime -- her defense attorney might face an uphill climb, regardless of any of her various subsequent "explanations," such as her claimed desire to be a better mother to her oldest or her claim that the "crazy voices" told her to do it
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Job got fucked over. Maybe God and the devil have a new bet. Once you start using the Bible for proof of subw things it gets pretty hard to draw arbitrary lines.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff if you accept ANY of it as true.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)and to read the story, of Abraham and Isaac, as justifying human sacrifice, is cast from some similar mould
If you actually read that story, with any attention to even its broadest details, you might notice that Isaac is not sacrificed: the story, in fact, does not teach human sacrifice but rather the end of such sacrifice
okasha
(11,573 posts)is in fact the answer to the question, "Daddy, why don't we practice child sacrifice like the people in the Canaanite kingdoms do?" It's an evhemerism, a story whose purpose is to explain historical events or cultural norms.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I specified Abrahamic religions, meaning I am referencing not only Jewish source documentation, but also that of Christians and Muslims (Binding of Ishmael). Hard to be an anti-Semite/Christian/muslim in that context, especially when I don't perceive any more 'meat' to the claims of these three, than I do the Silmarillion.
And no, you and I do not derive the same lessons from that story. My takeaway is that god might ask a follower to demonstrate blind obedience up to the point of holding a knife to his son's throat. And worse, that such followers might actually do it. And that this sort of obedience to a supernatural psychopath is in some way a positive thing.
There are in fact, multiple interpretations of the event beyond your subjective offering there about the end of human sacrifice, as well as beyond mine, but the common thread is, god asked for it, and it was allowed to proceed to the point of knife to throat.
No, I didn't miss any fucking details, but thanks for asking.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You're an anti-Semite and, in another thread, I was compared to Nazi concentration camp guards shooting prisoners and laughing about it. And he's a host. Interesting.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)given they see the worst of the moderation duties all the time, I'd probably be grouchy too, but still. That was totally uncalled for. Both instances.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I think it's abhorrent, and if I could be motivated to believe in the referenced god in any fashion, I would turn my back on it precisely for these moral outrages.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Just as you cannot objectively prove any given individual did not hear the voice of god telling him/her to perform an act of extraordinary generosity or self-sacrifice.
Therein lies the conundrum. Does religious belief cause bad and good actions, or is religious belief correlated with an existing predisposition to bad and good actions? It is more than a little disingenuous to declare with moral certainty that "religion causes murder" if one also refuses to declare with equal moral certainty that "religion causes generosity or self-sacrifice" (the latter of which is also "right there in their stupid fucking book"
.
It is among the dilemmas of consciousness that we cannot know with any truly reliable level of certainty what is subjectively occurring in any consciousness other than our own.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And is made in response to the many posters here who try incessantly to credit religion and religious "faith" and belief with most of the good done in the world, while denying that it motivates or is responsible for any of the evil.
Can you name any good act which could not have been done without the motivation of religion? And is there anything noble about doing good just because your "god" told you to, or because you're stumping for eternal reward?
LTX
(1,020 posts)that could not have been done without the motivation of religion? As for the inverse, there is nobility in doing good, whatever the motivation.
I think you are amply demonstrating here the essential cause vs. correlation problem that underlies the discussion. I have no way to demonstrate that, with or without "religious" motivation, a given bad or good act would have occurred. But it is (seemingly) an inherent property of human consciousness to invent and project subjective otherness, and that otherness may take the form of "me, scion of the valiant atheists," or "me, warrior of god" or "me, servant of Ted the libertarian squirrel." The notion that, if one simply does away with "religious" beliefs, human consciousness will act without reference to motivational invention or subscription, seems to be simple denial of the operational parameters of the human brain.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)who have been tortured and burned alive for religious heresy. Well, OK…you can't..because they're dead..burned alive. And I could go on and on and on. But I assume you get the point. Maybe.
And I note that, rather than answering my question, you made a lame and failed attempt to turn it back on me. Well, it's back in your court now. Can you answer mine, or are you just going to babble on insubstantially for a few more paragraphs, hoping that most people won't notice that you have nothing? Or are you going to attack more of the idiotic strawmen that the religionistas here erect on a daily basis, hoping that rational people won't notice? Or maybe just move a few goalposts?
Seriously…try something new…something that hasn't been tried and failed a hundred times here before.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. Because in "combat" mode, you seem to have entirely missed the point.
But for the sake of civil discussion, I'll ask, respectfully, whether you are suggesting that motivational invention or subscription is not an inherent part of the human psyche?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Still not finding anything remotely like a direct answer to my direct question. Just dodges and diversions, which weary me. I answered your question, simply and directly. Your turn.
Like I said, try something new. Something that's intellectually honest. Your tactics are old and tired.
LTX
(1,020 posts)a tribal demand for a compliant, and grossly simplistic, response. Religion causes bad. But "religion" is, in my view, an inherent, or inevitable, product of the human brain. And I think that simply speaking of "religion" as a monolithic or invariant ethos through time is a category error.
Certainly reigning theological, philosophical, political, or tribal affiliations in human history have been associated with, or have correlated with, both bad and good acts by superficially apparent subscribers. But with equal certainty, those apparent subscribers have splintered and evolved new affiliations with surprising alacrity. New motivational inventions, in other words, seem to crop up like weeds.
Which raises the very question that I thought we were discussing -- is a given affiliate-liturgy a cause of human action or merely correlated with otherwise preexisting dispositions in the human thought process. In the case of the woman made the subject of this thread, the question seems to be distilled. There is suggestive evidence that a predetermined outcome (perhaps elimination of the burdens of nurture) was in search of motivational justification, which was otherwise given definition in the words of a familiar liturgical contrivance. I am not persuaded that, in the absence of "x" liturgical contrivance, the same outcome would not have found justification by way of "Y" liturgical contrivance.
I think this is a fairly interesting issue for a number of reasons. Among them is the increasingly rapid turnover in affiliations with what have always been temporary, and highly fungible, religious institutions (and yes, I view even a few hundred years as scalably temporary). Accompanying this is an increasingly rapid splintering of liturgical crutches, which makes one wonder what we are looking at in terms of evolving replacements. At the same time, we (as a species) are developing a deeper, if still nascent, understanding of our own consciousness, which coincidentally provides a chance to explore the biological underpinnings of our apparent need for, and relationship to, these moving constructs.
I don't deny, of course, the historical fact of "bad deeds done in the name of (fill in the blank)," but I do question whether those bad deeds "done in the name of" are in fact "the product of."
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)dismiss a question as illegitimate with a wave of your hand, and then babbling on for paragraphs (as predicted) to try to cover up the fact that you can offer no answer, is also tiresomely familiar to me.
But the fact that you asked the same question of me with "bad" substituted for "good" shows that you do inherently accept the legitimacy of the question. You simply recognize that you can't answer my question honestly without undermining your own argument, so you dodge and dance to avoid doing so, hoping that no one will notice. That's thinking worthy of nothing but scorn. And thinking that is rampant on this board.
LTX
(1,020 posts)A bit ironic, given the views I've expressed, but admirable in its own way. Markedly religious, if I may be so impertinent. Ah well, further discussion seems pointless.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)(For reasons that are quite obvious) to answer direct questions, automatically raise red flags with me. And earn my scorn. Yes, I know you think you have a profound argument (yawn). Try answering my direct questions with answers that aren't weasely..then we'll talk about it.
In case you've forgotten, in all of your dodging:
Can you name any good act which could not have been done without the motivation of religion? And is there anything noble about doing good just because your "god" told you to, or because you're stumping for eternal reward?
LTX
(1,020 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)
automatically raise red flags with me. As for your first question (in case you never noticed, which you rather obviously did not), my point is that motivations for good acts and bad give every indication of being attributed for justificational purposes to whatever liturgical construct is predominant in the actor's mind." As for your second question, of course not. I certainly thought it was bloody goddam obvious from my comments that I don't view as "noble" the attribution of an act to theism, atheism, vegetarianism, or rubber-tireism. Good acts have nobility regardless of attribution, but attribution certainly seems to be an almost inherently necessary product of human thought.
You may disagree with these notions, but for god's sake, disagree with them on their own terms, instead of superimposing on them (ironically enough) your own, repetitive liturgical chant as justification for your own readily apparent need for personal combat.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and dismissed it as irrelevant dodges. Sheesh, either answer the question or admit that you can't.
Can you name any good act which could not have been done without the motivation of religion? Yes or no? You're apparently oblivious to the fact that if you can't answer my question as I answered yours (with a direct and simple "yes", backed up by examples), none of your other blather has any meaning.
LTX
(1,020 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You're far more profound than I ever imagined. This makes six exchanges where you've avoided answering a simple, direct question. And now you're reduced to playground insults.
Sad, really...but very typical of the religionistas here.
rug
(82,333 posts)You've encountered the precise reason why so many discussions get disrupted.
LTX
(1,020 posts)it is somewhat depressing to see the utter lack of progress in the "debates." Reactionary and doctrinaire pronouncements seem to predominate, with such pronouncements from the atheist side of the debate made in apparent obliviousness to their liturgical irony. As you know, I have been, perhaps properly, chastened for rising to the bait from one such parishioner, and I will have to try to more closely discern the murky line between insult and observation should I continue to post in this group.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's inveterate assholes who can not post without snarling. They would like nothing more than to be seen as the warriors and representatives of a strange notion of "reason".
It's refreshing to see the injections of thought into these discussions.
I look forward to your contributions.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But you could at least make it relevant and intellectually honest. For a change.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 5, 2014, 06:10 PM - Edit history (2)
what my argument is. As I've re-read your posts, you seem oblivious to what I'm actually saying. I'm speculating that you and I are not actually in disagreement on much other than, perhaps, cause vs. correlation, but even there, I can't really tell whether you agree or disagree. You seem stuck in some kind of rhetorical loop, where every discussion must be boiled down to your simplistic growl that religion=bad and atheism=good (or perhaps something even more rudimentary like me=good and you=bad). It's fascinating in its own way, but also kind of disturbing. (I'll add that I was reluctant to make this observation before, because I frankly know in advance what your response will be. And it will be neither civil nor pleasant to read.)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Fine. Let's tally them all up. Let's balance the ledger and see how religion comes out, overall.
Because if believers want me to accept the good, they have to accept the bad.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 5, 2014, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)
You may indeed be correct that bad acts "in the name of religion" outnumber the good, but there is a (perhaps not surprising) bias in historical reporting of the spectacularity bad pushing aside the mundanely good in the record. But I do agree that if believers want to take credit for the good, they must acknowledge the bad. That is just the nature of consistent (and honest) reflection about one's chosen motivational subscription.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But it's so slippery like a fish! every time we think we have something nailed down everyone denys it and we have to start all over.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)then presumably, the sooner the people you love get there, the better, because it is, pretty much by definition, better than being on earth. Struggling to stay on earth, rather than in Heaven, seems to suggest you don't actually believe you'll go there, or that it even exists.
I'm always surprised by the people who claim to believe, but do everything they can to stay alive as long as possible.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)the right thing to do?
Hypothetical: the baby jesus arrives on a heavenly chariot tomorrow in Central Park in NYC and announces that everyone should die right now if they want to go to heaven.
Don't you, as a believer, having seen your god incarnate and having heard him and his instructions, have to go kill yourself?
Now suppose additionally that you are suffering from psychotic delusions.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I told you before if you hear voices seek medical attention.
I want to live a long life.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If you get to make unfounded assertions about god, so do I. She said that she sent her kids to heaven. I get to conclude, without making much of an unfounded leap, that she believed that this is what god wanted. At any rate, the world is full of delusional people who believe that god has told them all sorts of things, both awful and marvelous. The question is how are we to distinguish which of the many revelations of what the gods want of us from those that are psychotic babble and those that are the REAL WORD OF GOD(s)? I suggest quite obviously that there is no way at all to tell the difference.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We don't know why this woman did this.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)God tells people to kill people all through the Old Testament. And does it himself, on a genocidal scale. But in your little bubble of invented reality, none of that counts.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Or ever?
Because the bible claims to document quite a lot of that sort of thing.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)who taught me, one of the conditions of genuine martyrdom is that the martyr does NOT want to die. Historically, the RCC has treated some unnecessary high risk taking behavior--getting yourself killed.in a tournament, for example--as suicide.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)death of two children just so they can promote their agenda of hate for religion. None seem to have compassion for those who have been affected by this tragedy I see no one expressing sorrow for this senseless death of two children only a perverse gladness they can blame religion for the acts of this woman who in her possible mental illness or even plain evil desire to be rid of her children did this. Perhaps they should also look inside and see what causes them to act as they do in this way.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Nobody is lacking compassion. You have no idea if people have sorrow. Nobody is expressing perverse gladness.
What is happening is that this is solely a discussion of the role of religion here. That's it. That you don't want that discussion to happen speaks volumes.
If it will make you happier, I feel horrible that these two young lives were taken by their mother. That is horrible and I wish it never happened.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)As far as a discussion of the role of religion that is a laughable claim given the history of these type of threads. No matter how many times it has been shown that these events are the outcome of untreated mental illness certain individuals always use this as an excuse to continue their campaign, if you're not one great. As for your comment that no one is gloating that rings quite hollow too we all know at least two posters who miss no chance to do just that .
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What the hell does that mean? If you think any atheist in here doesn't think these are horrible deaths, then I have no idea what there is to talk about with you.
You see it as gloating because you are taking it personally. Perhaps that should tell you something. The atheists in this group have been very clear what these threads are about. None of the state reasons are what you say. If you want to continue thinking it is the things you are attributing to us/them, that's your straw man to build, I guess. Don't expect we are going to just agree with you.
rug
(82,333 posts)You have an inordinate delight in deaths that have a religious tangent.
And there is no second person plural in this post.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Imagine a thread titled "Atheist Mother Shoots Severely Disabled Children." Imagine that it goes on to say that she committed the act because she despaired of their ever being able to live a full or rewarding life, so that killing them was an act of humane mercy. And the money quote is, "Since there's no god and no afterlife, this one life of misery was all they had to look forward to."
Imagine further that she heard "voices" advising her that her act would spare them years of suffering.
Now: Do we blame her lack of belief for her act, or do we blame her fucked-up brain chemistry?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)said "I killed them because of my atheism" then we would have a discussion. None of these threads posted are just "Christian mother kills kids." They all stem from statements from the parents that they did them because god told them to, to exorcise demons, to send them to heaven, etc. Find a comparable reason an atheist parent kills their children because of stated atheism reasons and we can have that discussion. I'm sure there are several on this group that have a Google Alert set up for just that thing so I'm sure if it existed we'd hear about it. Until that point, you're stuck with the people saying they killed their kids because of religious reasons. Not my fault they are saying that.
okasha
(11,573 posts)We all know very well that the same posters here who ignore the role of psychiatric illness when Christian parents kill their children.would instantly blame the same act committed by a non believer on the parent's illness.
And they would be right.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that there is a distinct difference between a mother who just happens to be Christian killing her children, and a mother killing her children for reasons directly related to, or motivated by, her indoctrination with Christian beliefs. And that it's been conveniently declared, without proof, that the latter cases must all be attributable to mental illness alone (i.e. the vapid declaration that crazy people do crazy things simply because they're crazy), and not the combination of mental illness with their beliefs about the world that make their actions seem reasonable to them.
But as noted elsewhere, you can't cite any cases where an atheist mother has slaughtered her own children and declared afterwards that she needed to purge them of "atheist demons" or that she wanted to be sure they went to "atheist heaven" or any such thing.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Find that fantastic example you posited. Post it. And we'll see what the discussion is. But that's never going to happen. And you know it.
How about the other point? Are you willing to now say forever forward, that anything anyone does that we all think is a good thing that they do because of their religion has NOTHING to do with that religion?
LTX
(1,020 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)No. So, no, it won't do.
That would be an appropriate (though pretty soundly indicated in this group why that isn't a fair example, but that's part of the discussion) response to "religion is responsible for more deaths than anything else."
Nice try, though.
Actually, no it wasn't.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Why (if I can deviate from the o/p without getting pilloried) is this not a fair example of the converse to "religion is responsible for more deaths than anything else?"
(And as a further aside, I've been reliably informed that religion causes murder, but it cannot cause altruism -- so is it fair to assume that atheism causes altruism, but cannot cause murder? )
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)but what happened in Cambodia did not happen because of atheism. Was Pol Pot an atheist? Yes. Was he killing in the name of atheism? No. He was killing for power. Many have killed for religion.
And the point isn't that religion cannot cause altruism but that there is hypocrisy in saying that religion does cause altruism but it doesn't cause the mothers killing their kids (among other things) because they are just crazy. We can go the next step in the argument to see if those altruistic events wouldn't have happened without religion. And then the next step is that is it laudable that one does something "altruistic" when they are doing it to avoid hell.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Specifically targeting adherents of identified religions, and affirmatively outlawing religion on pain of slaughter, doesn't really have anything to do with atheism. Atheism is kind of like vegetarianism -- lots of different people are vegetarian, and therefore it can't, by definition, "cause" anything. Get out of jail free.
As for your "hypocrisy" point, it is one I made myself with what I thought was rather explicit precision. But I was, again, reliably informed that I was not only a "religionista," but "intellectually dishonest." You may be in trouble with the tribe.
And finally, I am also reliably informed that altruistic events are cause-less (unlike murder, which is caused by religion), and therefore cannot in any way be attributed to anything other than the (apparently mystical) "goodness" inherent in (some, presumably atheist) humans.
It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Are you going to make the same statements about those posts on here where religion is given as the reason that people do wonderful things? When people help people because "god wanted them to" (and we did have one of those recently with the woman leaving the huge tip for the waitress) are you going to talk about how it's just crazy people that hear voices? Or are you going to talk about wonderful Christians?
Can't have it both ways. If religion doesn't cause people to do shitty things, it doesn't cause them to do good things. If "hearing voices" telling you to do bad things means you have mental health problems, then "hearing voices" telling you to do good things means you have mental health problems, too. Personally, I think it is all mental health problems. But most mainstream Christian religions believe in demonic possession so, I'm kind of at odds with them on that one, too.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)irrelevant noise blast.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Because there never has been, and never will be, a thread where a mother says, "I killed my children because of my atheism". If you had any capacity for honest reflection and self-examination, that little fact would speak volumes to you.
I know you'd like to imagine that you're right about something, anything in here, and that you have a rational, fact-based argument to support anything you say here any more, but you'd need a very vivid imagination for that.
rug
(82,333 posts)What do you think caused this?
http://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2012/10/11/atheism-has-a-suicide-problem/
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)By Andrew Conte
Published: Saturday, April 5, 2014, 5:12 p.m.
Updated 15 minutes ago
... “The Office of the Medical Examiner was notified that the formal death criteria has been met on Daniel Schlemmer at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh,” the medical examiner said in a statement. “A forensic autopsy examination will be scheduled and conducted to determine the cause and manner of death on this case.”
Mark Schlemmer, the boys' father, could not be reached for comment. Michael Machen, a defense attorney for the mother, could not be reached.
Michelle Schlemmer appeared by video conference in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court on Thursday, appearing dazed and not speaking. She wore a black vest in place of regular jail garb, which authorities said is done as a precaution against suicide attempts ...
Schlemmer told investigators that “crazy voices” told her that she would be a better mother to her oldest child if the other two “weren't around,” according to court records ...
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5895333-74/schlemmer-son-office
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The family is in my prayers.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)By Associated Press
Posted: 04/05/14, 6:29 PM EDT
PITTSBURGH — A 911 center employee has been fired for giving the media copies of a call made by a western Pennsylvania woman who’s charged with forcibly submerging two of her sons in a bathtub, killing one of them.
Allegheny County Emergency Services Chief Alvin Henderson says the unidentified employee was terminated Friday because policies prohibit disclosing 911 calls or transcripts ...
http://www.thereporteronline.com/general-news/20140405/allegheny-employee-fired-after-leak-of-911-call
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)has nothing to do with religion. She was obviously not trying to use a religious excuse for her behavior. Heaven is just a word, like religion, you can't blame heaven or religion for this woman's actions and statements. yeah.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We don't knoe why this happened yet.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)on the woman that drowned her kids in a tub. I'm sure she'll fail those 'tests' and then some people will claim it as some kind of victory for their faith, because hey, she was crazy.. Whew..
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)People want to know why this happened.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)their kids or someone else because of a religious reason, people use the excuse that the person is mentally ill. It is never questioned if there were insane people 2000 years ago, all those fuckers were sane, God told them to do it. Today, not so much, you kill someone for God and everyone thinks you are crazy.
It's too bad all this is lost on a lot of people.. they just can't see that they might be believing the ramblings of the mentally insane.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We shouldn't jump to conclusions.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Which would you prefer she say?
a) That she killed them because she was fed up/sick/didn't like them anymore/liked her other kids more
b) To send them to heaven.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They will want answers.
As for your question I hope she answers truthfully.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Either she is crazy and is using her beliefs as an excuse, or she is crazy and thinks she did them a favour. Which would you prefer?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)EvilAL
(1,437 posts)which would you accept as valid?
Seems like you always point to mental health issues when these topics come up. "If you hear voices seek medical attention" and all that stuff. So I wonder when, or if at any time, you would accept a religious reason for killing someone.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is possible she was sane and decided to kill them for some twisted religious reason.
But it is more likely to me that she had a mental issue and that is the reason. Time will tell.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)so what's the common denominator here?
Wouldn't it be safe to say that if these people that 'do it all the time' weren't involved with religion, or hadn't heard about it, that they wouldn't have killed anybody at all?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Tribal wars might continue evrn if there was no religion.
We are not going to give up our faith because some are violent.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)Really?? Born violent.
Well god did make us to be just like him, so it kinda makes sense.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)EvilAL
(1,437 posts)There are different reasons people can be violent, religious beliefs is one of them, we agree on that at least.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Most religious people are not violent but we still have too many that are.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)she'll probably remain in the county mental health evaluation unit
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)On Monday, Dr. Christine Martone found that 40-year-old Laurel Michelle Schlemmer should be treated at a state institution to determine if she can stand trial in the future ...
Judge Jeffrey Manning also issued a gag order in the case Monday at the request of Schlemmer's attorney. That means no one involved may comment on the competency finding.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pennsylvania-mom-accused-of-drowning-kids-found-mentally-incompetent/
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)By Adam Brandolph
Posted: 8:15 a.m. Tuesday, April 8, 2014
PITTSBURGH — Laurel Michelle Schlemmer is depressed, psychotic and suicidal, making her unfit for trial on charges that she drowned her two youngest sons in a bathtub in their McCandless home, an Allegheny County psychiatrist said.
Three months of treatment in a state hospital could change that, a judge and forensic psychologists said on Monday ...
“Competence to stand trial means you have a factual and rational understanding of the charges against you and that you're able to cooperate with your attorney,” Martone told the Tribune-Review ...
Hospitalization at Torrance, operated by the Department of Public Welfare's Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, generally is ordered to restore a patient's competence, psychiatrists said. Most patients are prescribed medication so they can better understand charges against them, they said ...
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/mccandless-mother-ruled-unfit-trial-sent-state-hos/nfTtY/
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)By JOE MANDAK Associated Press
April 07, 2014 - 1:26 pm EDT
... In Pennsylvania, people are considered mentally competent to stand trial if they can distinguish between right and wrong and if they can assist their attorneys in their defense — even if their crime may have been fueled by delusions. So Schlemmer could eventually stand trial on criminal homicide and other charges even if she continues to maintain her behavior was fueled by the "crazy voices," provided prosecutors can prove she still realized the consequences.
A preliminary hearing on the charges that had been scheduled for Friday has been postponed indefinitely ...
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/162bbc7763fd4436ac91690b98ffe526/US--Mother-Bathtub-Drowning
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"even if their crime may have been fueled by delusions"
Thus her religious beliefs were delusions I guess. I wonder how you tell the delusional ones from the real ones.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)As far as how one determines if a religious belief is a delusion, if the child dies, it is a psychotic delusion, otherwise it is just a religious belief.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)One fact is that the woman is currently incompetent to stand trial: that does not preclude trial at a later date
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What you lack in substance you do make up for in volume, it seems.
struggle4progress
(126,158 posts)#157 indicates she's currently incompetent and will be treated: it also notes the gag order -- so no new info will be forthcoming in the near future
#158 adds a short description of what "incompetent" means here and adds that she may stand trial if treatment succeeds; it also tells where she is confined
#159 gives a fuller description of what "incompetent" means here and makes clear that the current finding of incompetence does not determine whether or not a later insanity defense might succeed; it also informs the preliminary hearing (that we had expected Friday) will be postponed
I think one ought to learn such information about cases under discussion here
You in your prior post #160 seem to think these posts signify an attempt to prove something like her religious beliefs were delusions; but that is inaccurate: the incompetence determination is not a finding on her state of mind when she drowned her sons or the causes of that event -- it is merely a determination that she cannot currently understand the charges against her or cooperate effectively in her own defense
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Well done!