Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Nature free at once and rid of her haughty lords is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself without the meddling of the gods.
Lucretius
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Some porn is deemed salutary | Main | Did we suddenly become a majority? »
Category: Evil • Religion
Posted on: May 20, 2007 10:29 PM, by PZ Myers
He wanted to be a preacher. He was a good Christian. His wife was a true believer, too. Their baby, though, was a godless heathen who never read the bible.
So I'm sure it was perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the microwave and cook her.
And their excuse that Satan made him do it? Quite sensible, I'm sure.
Isn't faith a wonderful thing?
Comments
Posted by: Chris Thompson | May 20, 2007 10:34 PM
Even I draw the line here PZ. Faith in this case is a symptom, not a cause, of the mental illness.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 20, 2007 10:38 PM
KILL...
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 20, 2007 10:42 PM
Chris, I'm not so sure. Interesting that BOTH of them appear to be mentally ill. That BOTH of them appear to buy into the realness of Satan.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 20, 2007 10:45 PM
Religion is the rationalization the insane use to excuse insanity after the fact.
Posted by: chris rattis | May 20, 2007 10:46 PM
Life would be better off without people hiding their heads in the sand.
Posted by: Maronan | May 20, 2007 10:54 PM
WTF? 19-year-old husband? How old was she? That young, and they have kids already. Hm.
Posted by: Davis | May 20, 2007 10:58 PM
If you believe that Satan is a real being, out there creating problems for good people, how do you go about differentiating between his influence and plain old mental illness? If it's Satan, you just have to pray harder, rather than seeking professional help (or dragging your spouse in for help).
I think this man's wife demonstrates one of the dangers of such beliefs -- given the opportunity, it sounds like she'd place their child back into his care, with prayer as his only treatment.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 20, 2007 11:00 PM
This had nothing to do with Satan. Satan doesn't instruct people to microwave babies. Babies should be boiled or the meat gets rubbery.
pshaw
Posted by: mjs | May 20, 2007 11:06 PM
It's all about accountability. Now, if Satan would just fess up we could all go on about our business. In the meantime, I think the man in question should refrain from cooking with children nearby.
Note: I thought Satan was busy getting men to have sex with each other, and pushing the ACLU to protect the Enemies of the One True God, and fluoridating our water supply. But then again, what the hell do I know? I voted for Wotan.
+++
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2007 11:09 PM
Mike's right.
I tried the BBQ, but the baby-fat burns to quick and you end up with just a charred mess.
OTOH, if you boil FIRST, to remove some of the excess fat, THEN BBQ, it works much better.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 20, 2007 11:16 PM
Dilettantes. Raw, squirming, and whole, stuffed into the maw, down the gullet, and plunk into the hydrochloric acid is how Satan does it. They should have realized the instant that the voices in their heads demanded that the sacrifice be cooked that they were dealing with a fake.
Posted by: Chris Thompson | May 20, 2007 11:17 PM
"Chris, I'm not so sure. Interesting that BOTH of them appear to be mentally ill. That BOTH of them appear to buy into the realness of Satan."
--Hank
It isn't surprising given that the mentally ill do gravitate to fundamentalist churches. They're looking for stability and rigidity, and the churches provide it. In this case, two loons seem to have found each other.
and:
"Religion is the rationalization the insane use to excuse insanity after the fact."
--PZ
And to say that religion caused them to nuke their kids is to miss the fact that there are seriously ill people out there, undiagnosed and untreated. This country has an abysmal record of spotting and helping the mentally ill. I will give you that the faith part probably exacerbated their illness- but it didn't cause it, any more than role-playing games do, as they were accused of doing in the 1970's. Those two were batshit nuts before they ever went to church.
Chris
Posted by: Andy | May 20, 2007 11:18 PM
I'm sure the rationale "the devil told him to do it" makes her sleep better at night, but I'm quite sure Satan's schedule is packed and that he most likely couldn't find the time to send a postcard to this guy, much less a phone call or a personal meeting. Those nine levels of Hell ain't gonna run themselves, you know. How self-important these influenced-by-the-devil people think they are.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2007 11:23 PM
Dilettantes. Raw, squirming, and whole, stuffed into the maw, down the gullet, and plunk into the hydrochloric acid is how Satan does it. They should have realized the instant that the voices in their heads demanded that the sacrifice be cooked that they were dealing with a fake.
sounds more like something from the Chthulu cookbook, to me.
are you sure you don't have those two recipes mixed up there PZ?
or maybe I confused it with a Martha Stewart cooking show.
whatever, I'm a pragmatist.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 20, 2007 11:35 PM
Bite me. ;/
As for the rest of you, I have a 34-month old girl, so I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to sit the baby-eating jokes out. :/ Unlike every self-conscious idiot I've ever wanted to smack I'm not gonna berate you for indulging, though x.x
Posted by: Mike | May 20, 2007 11:35 PM
PZ: Aren't you the guy who's supposed to be all about evidence? But here we have you just plain making it up like you're channeling Kent Hovind:
"Their baby, though, was a godless heathen who never read the bible. So I'm sure it was perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the microwave and cook her."
The wife said it was Satan feeling threatened by her husband and making him do it. That may be nonsense, but it isn't about the baby being a godless heathen, is it. And the husband doesn't seem to have said anything about Satan (in neither the AP story nor any others I read) but said he was 'stressed', so he's putting up a non-religious line of defence, or at least explanation (I'd have thought you'd be pleased by that).
In another article on this: " Eva Mauldin says her husband is not "the monster people are making him out to be." " It is common or spouses not to want to believe the worst of their spouse and seek to excuse it. She's rattled and clutching at straws and if she's babbling, what's your excuse, hundreds of miles away and not having your life ripped apart?
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 20, 2007 11:42 PM
Hmmm...Chris, look again. I said nothing about religion causing insanity. I also don't seriously endorse the idea that Satan did it. What I am mocking is this common use of religion as an excuse for insane behavior.
I presume you'll agree with me that "Satan made me do it" is no more effective an excuse than "I felt like doing something evil"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2007 11:45 PM
mike-
you're seriously trying to say that if someone you knew personally stuffed your kid in a microwave...
the stress would make you say "Satan made them"?
really?
I see no need to apologize for insanity here.
Posted by: Orac | May 20, 2007 11:50 PM
Gotta say, PZ, you're really reaching here. This is way out there, even for you. The guy is clearly mentally ill. If Christianity didn't exist, the wife would almost certainly have found a different excuse to try to rationalize her husband's act.
Posted by: s9 | May 20, 2007 11:52 PM
Troll repellant: no, it wouldn't have been any prettier if it had been Stalin instead of Satan. It also wouldn't have changed the underlying point. Religion is a force for destruction no matter what form it takes. That includes supposedly atheist "civil religion" systems, as well. Pull on that thread for a while before you try to run your trollery here.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 20, 2007 11:54 PM
Maybe it was God, not Satan, who made him do it.
After all, God has a track record on this kind of thing.
Hubby has passed the sacrifice-your-child-for-God test with flying colors!
A great beginning to what promises to be a truly inspiring ministry!
Posted by: Mike | May 20, 2007 11:56 PM
Ichthyic: Because my religious background and life experience are different than that of Eva Mauldin, I'd be grasping at some other straw to avoid thinking my spouse was a monster and/or that I was at fault for even having a child with someone who could do that.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 20, 2007 11:59 PM
Yes, the guy is nuts, and I'm not saying otherwise. I don't understand where some of you are getting this weird idea that I'm saying he's not off his rocker.
Sure, if I tried to nuke a baby, my wife wouldn't say Satan made me do it: she'd say that I'd lost my mind and needed medical attention. It's sad to see that the 'devil made me do it' excuse is so ordinary that some people don't see the point in highlighting it as part of a problem.
Posted by: Mike | May 21, 2007 12:30 AM
Highlighting is one thing, making up stuff is another. Or lying only bad when it is 'for Jesus'?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | May 21, 2007 12:31 AM
Mike, it's called satire. You're supposed to realise PZ made up "Their baby, though, was a godless heathen who never read the bible."
It's a riff on a line occasionally used by atheists in debates with the faithful. Roughly:
Everyone is born an atheist and remains so for several years, until the indoctrination takes effect.
You can have your very own bumpersticker making the point from cafepress.
http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion.26806681
Yes, she likely is very distraught and we should pity her. It's still evidence of a self deceiving mindset.
Then there's the part where God gets the glory for good things and also any silver lining
found in the bad things.
Since God is omnipotent, Satan can do nothing without God's permission. God allowed this to happen, with or without Satan's assistance. Or there is no god.
Posted by: Austin | May 21, 2007 12:38 AM
First: A grand jury indicted Joshua Mauldin last week on child injury charges after hearing evidence that he placed the two-month-old in a motel microwave for 10 to 20 seconds.
Why did he take the baby to a motel...? Admittedly, this entire episode is ridiculous, but that struck me as exceedingly bizarre. And what kind of motel has in-room microwaves that are large enough to fit a baby? There's no way I could fit one into the microwave in my apartment. Maybe I should upgrade.
Second: why does everyone rush to blame Satan for atrocities against children? God's track record on this is far more troubling. There was that whole 'death of the firstborn' thing with Egypt, to start with, and I'm sure there was a sizeable number of infants that perished in the flood. He allowed himself to be goaded by Satan into killing Job's seven sons (although he avoids the charge of hypocrisy here by being equally willing to allow the death of his own). And, most relevant to this case, there was the whole faith-testing episode with Abraham and Isaac--only here, the loving father used the popcorn setting instead of a knife. Conversely, Satan's biblical record is relatively spotless, limited to a handful of skeptical conversations and some minor possessions.
All I'm sayin' is that I'd think long and hard about which one I'd pick to babysit.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 21, 2007 1:22 AM
Umm, I'm fairly confident that a two-month old baby is not contemplating the fine nuances of the Nicene Creed, nor is she likely to have been reading the bible unless she is spectacularly precocious. I'm afraid the godless illiteracy of an infant was my only assumption -- if it was wrong, I'd be interested to learn about that, and maybe then the excuse that it was Satan's fault would be more believable. I'd be wondering about supernatural intervention if a kid that young were preachifyin' and studyin' on the gospels, that's for sure!
Posted by: amph | May 21, 2007 1:47 AM
Fortunately, the baby has survived. Has someone already commented that it survived thanks to God's help? And would that be less insane than the Satan comment?
It is just the mechanism of thought of some Christians. If something bad happens: Satan --- something good:
God. So, it was Satan by definition.
As far as I know, God stopped killing babies after the Old Testament era.
Posted by: MartinC | May 21, 2007 1:51 AM
Why does Satan get the blame here ?
If its a case of calling on some guy to kill his own child then surely we should look to that other mythical figure who actually has form for this sort of thing.
I mean if they had microwaves in Abraham's day then who knows, maybe God would have commanded him to blast his kiddie for a minute at full power (although being a merciful God he would have reset the cooker to 20 seconds on low power - praise be!).
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2007 2:13 AM
Fortunately, the baby has survived. Has someone already commented that it survived thanks to God's help? And would that be less insane than the Satan comment?
no, it would not.
but this brings up an interesting question.
who pulled the baby OUT of the microwave?
Posted by: Justin Moretti | May 21, 2007 6:28 AM
PZ's comment about the baby being a sinful heathen reminded me of something I heard a fundamentalist hateball say once; that babies, squawling as they do for attention, food and to be changed and cleaned up when the food has made its journey, are selfish, and therefore sinful.
Throw in a dose of mental illness, and it's easy to comprehend how a fundamentalist hateball could put their baby in a microwave, but don't call them Christian, PZ, because such an act spits on everything Christ ever taught about how to treat your fellow human beings.
Now I know the Christian dogma is that none of us is perfect, but for fuck's sake, you'd think even the fundies would cut infants a little slack. Or did they miss that part of the bible where Christ says "Let the little ones come unto me, for to them belongs the kingdom of Heaven" - hardly dismissal as seething balls of selfish sin.
The problem with fundamentalist hateballs isn't the fact that they're religious, PZ: it's the fact that they deliberately pare everything out of Christian teaching that has the slightest suggestion of compassion, tolerance or mercy, and then apply the bastardized results to everyone else. The compassion, tolerance and mercy, they save for themselves. Atheists aren't immune, either: "Some animals are more equal than others..."
Gandhi said it all: "I admire Christ, but not Christians."
Posted by: csrster | May 21, 2007 7:38 AM
"you'd think even the fundies would cut infants a little slack"
Depends which fundies. According to some, Original Sin means that babies are born in a state of sin, alienated from God and requiring salvation.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 21, 2007 7:40 AM
Religion is such a great excuse-generator, though - it's just full of rationalizations of all kinds.
The point is not that this woman would rationalize (oh, the irony of language) the behavior away no matter what. The point is that religion makes it so much easier to do.
Posted by: Jud | May 21, 2007 7:47 AM
"What I am mocking is this common use of religion as an excuse for insane behavior."
I once had the experience in school of living in an off-campus apartment for a week with a young man who was, unfortunately for him and those around him, insane. (I was living there already; a roommate had moved out; and this fellow kept himself looking and sounding normal enough long enough for the landlord to rent to him as a new roommate.) For days at a time, he did not sleep that I saw. He "cleaned" repeatedly by marching through the house with cans of Glade and Lysol in each hand, spraying them into the air until they were empty. He alternated this with episodes of making an unholy mess of the bathroom (the landlord had to bring in a service to clean the walls afterward), and screaming at me that the Devil, or the Supreme Court, would condemn me.
The point is that the insane, like all of us, internalize the images and messages of the culture, but their filters on such messages work differently (obviously). Religion, like Glade, Lysol, and the judicial branch of government, is a persistent source of such images and messages.
I am wondering why this should be remarkable to anyone at all, or, particularly in the case of a tragedy such as the killing of a baby, a source of mockery.
Posted by: Circe | May 21, 2007 7:55 AM
It happened in Texas. Of course.
Last year, my daughter's elementary school teacher went on at length, telling my daughter that she was going to be "left behind" at the Rapture... Praise Science there was no large, industrial-sized microwave oven in the classroom!
Posted by: Dianne | May 21, 2007 8:24 AM
It is common or spouses not to want to believe the worst of their spouse and seek to excuse it.
I don't get this at all. If my boyfriend put our child in a microwave and I found out, I wouldn't be protecting him. I'd be giving the police advice on where to look for a piece of him large enough to get a DNA identification off of so that they could confirm his death. What sort of a nut, religious or otherwise, sticks with a man who would microwave a baby, while in his right mind or otherwise?
Posted by: Graculus | May 21, 2007 8:29 AM
Praise Science there was no large, industrial-sized microwave oven in the classroom!
Adults don't microwave well, anyway, your daughter would have needed a deep-fryer to cook that teacher properly.
Posted by: daedalus2u | May 21, 2007 8:33 AM
This shows just how useful religion is. It can be used to justify and excuse any and all behaviors, no matter how insane, destructive or self-serving.
What other purpose does religion serve?
Posted by: Dianne | May 21, 2007 8:42 AM
What other purpose does religion serve?
I tend to believe that religion can, at its best, be, as Marx said, the opium of the masses. Opiates can, of course, be abused an addictive. But they have their uses. Keeping away intolerable pain that can't be relieved in any other way, for example. Sometimes I'm sorry that I have the narcan of atheism and rational thought to keep the possibility of that opium dream away...then I read stories like this one and am glad that that's one insanity that I have so far avoided.
Posted by: Amy | May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Per Circe's comment, these types of things seem to happen disproportionately more often in Texas. Before I even got through the story and had a chance to look at the beginning of it, I knew it had to be Texas. WTF is happening in Texas??? People stoning their kids, drowning them, microwaving them, all because god told them to? It just seems odd...I live in the southeast and it just seems that it happens freakishly often there.
Posted by: Brandon | May 21, 2007 10:05 AM
I'll let you know later today, after my synagogue's weekly food drive.
Ya know, for people who call themselves scientists, a lot of you sure love logical fallacies when they can justify your hatred of religion.
Posted by: Baratos | May 21, 2007 10:40 AM
And will post a rebuttal using this computer, in an air-conditioned room, wearing synthetic fabrics and taking the pharmaceuticals that keep me sane.Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 21, 2007 10:50 AM
Surprisingly, you all have missed the real reason Mr. Joshua Royce Mauldin was willing to sacrifice his daugther. The best way to prove his devotion to God. After all, Avraham was about to sacrifice his son Itzhak, only to be saved by an angel? Unfortunately, the angel this time had some difficulties openning the microwave oven door in time. Nevertheless, the intent of the future priest, not the outcome, is what counts.
Posted by: Greco | May 21, 2007 10:51 AM
I hope you haven't mixed with natural fabrics, or we will have to stone you to death. Sorry, it's the law.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | May 21, 2007 10:53 AM
Leave it to PZ to blame religion. This is why creationism can advance - because of PZ and Dawkins. If they just kept quiet about atheism, no one would even try to push ID in the schools.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 21, 2007 10:56 AM
Speaking of logical fallacies, since when does people helping other people with charity provide support for the superstitious premises of religion? Here's a revelation for you: atheists donate food and money and assistance to the needy, too.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 21, 2007 11:01 AM
What other purpose does religion serve?
Provides fun words to scream at point of orgasm.
Posted by: sailor | May 21, 2007 11:06 AM
Austin: "God's track record on this is far more troubling."
Yes come to think of it he would have done better to say "God asked me to do it" there are are least precedents for that.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 21, 2007 11:07 AM
Brandon,
I guess that you would not be able to do any good for needy humans if not for your synagogue's weekly food drive. Tell me, is religion the impetus to collect food for the hungry or it is the other way around? Why one must have to be religious to feel for the less fortunate?
Posted by: rrt | May 21, 2007 11:16 AM
"Why one must have to be religious to feel for the less fortunate?"
Because without God we're all fundamentally corrupt, evil, selfish, raping/pillaging/looting scumbags who'd never lift a finger to help another. Gosh, S., I thought that was obvious! I mean, who hasn't wanted to burn entire villages to the ground just to enjoy the screaming? I know I have!
Eek!
(obscure reference brought to you by Graham Chapman...)
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 21, 2007 11:25 AM
You're right, rrt. I completely forgot about Rev. Jones and the Jonestown incedent.
Posted by: Steve Sutton | May 21, 2007 11:28 AM
I hope the baby is taken away from those...people.
Posted by: Michael LoPrete | May 21, 2007 11:49 AM
Justin Moretti,
If I remember correctly, that's actually Augustine.
Posted by: sailor | May 21, 2007 11:50 AM
I am interested in those who opt for the mentally ill side of this - this includes you Orac. Now beating or shaking a baby till he/she is badly damaged is unfortunately fairly common (stepfathers apparently do this more than fathers which is something Darwin might have predicted.)
So here is the question: Do you consider ANYONE who violently damages a baby to be mentally ill? Or you do reserve it for those who use the microwave? What other tools would make him qualify for the mentall ill designation?
Note the guy said he was stessed, not that the devil did it, that was his wife rationalizing.
Posted by: CalGeorge, radical secularist | May 21, 2007 11:50 AM
Ms. Mauldin has set up a MySpace page, "Joshua Mauldin is not a Monster," in hopes of defending her husband and making pleas for people to help her.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-baby_21tex.ART.State.Edition1.43193ea.html
This does not appear to be available.
Grandma of baby speaks:
http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070517-khoujc-babymicrowave.7ad4df7a.html
Father: "God told him to move to Galveston!"
That's when they should have realized something was very wrong.
What kind of god would do that!?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | May 21, 2007 11:50 AM
Religion brings the babes!Eight wives not enough for convicted bigamist
Posted by: HP | May 21, 2007 11:58 AM
I miss Flip Wilson.
Posted by: brightmoon | May 21, 2007 12:11 PM
It is common or spouses not to want to believe the worst of their spouse and seek to excuse it.
might be form of stockholm syndrome ....ive heard from a FOAF about a woman who lost her arm from being battered and still didnt leave that viscious a**hole ....and remember creos dont allow women to think for themselves either ..shes probably thinking for the fist time in her life and she can't do it
Posted by: Kseniya | May 21, 2007 12:21 PM
Joshua Mauldin, a monster? No. He's a seriously ill young man. IMHO.
Jud:
Jud, I agree with you in principle, but I question whether or not this applies to the event under discussion. Did you read the news article?
First, the baby wasn't killed. Second, the guy who put the baby in the oven didn't offer a faith-based excuse - he said he was stressed. (In other words, he has absolutely no idea why he did it.) It was the baby's mother who let him off the hook completely by invoking Satan as the evil-doer.
There's no indication that the mother, who is the one being "mocked," suffers from any chronic mental illness.
PZ's error, then, was in saying "their excuse" instead of "her excuse."
* * *
The faith-based excuse generator works any way you want it to. I just pulled the lever, and look what came out:
"God intervened in this young man's plans to become a preacher because His Omniscience foresaw that the young man would become another Jerry Falwell. God could not stomach this, so He, in his infinite wisdom, forced the man to perform an act that would haunt him the rest of his life while doing relatively little harm to the infant, who wouldn't remember a thing because, as everyone knows, babies can't feel pain and don't remember it anyway (e.g., circumcision)."
See? Everything happens for a reason. This was actually a GOOD thing. Rejoice! One day the little girl may pay some hard-earned money to some mind-twisting godbanging hucksters so that she can publish a book called Thank God I was Microwaved as a Baby!
Look. The real point is that the mind that cranks out "He's a nice guy, really. The Devil made him do it," is not the same mind that realizes that this nice guy had some kind of psychotic break and needs help very badly, and that the baby will continue to be at risk until the situation is addressed. That's what we're talking about here. Joshua Mauldin is right at the age where schizophrenia can take person away, and that may be what is happening.
I sympathize with his wife's horror and her denial response, but to blame the devil? Honestly - what possible good can come from that? It's just another example of the shifting of responsibility (or credit) from the living to the supernatural, and who or what shall we blame for this dynamic? Popular culture?
When it comes to charitable works, of course Jud makes a valid point. Religious organizations do plenty of good work, and the organizations that sponsor these works, and the people who actually perform them, do deserve credit. However, the religion is entirely optional. Any rational person knows this, Jud included (or so I assume).
Obviously, some will argue that the the high price of these works, as exacted from humankind and the human psyche, outweighs the value of the works themselves. I can't claim to know how to measure that.
Posted by: Graculus | May 21, 2007 12:39 PM
Owens has said he did divorce some of the wives, but he can't remember which ones.
File under "people unclear on the concept"
Posted by: Jud | May 21, 2007 1:04 PM
Kseniya: You're correct, I didn't read the article (tend to stay away from that sort of thing, Anna Nicole Smith news, etc.). Sorry for the confusion of message caused by my misapprehension of the facts, but most fundamentally (no pun intended) relieved that the baby survived.
"Look. The real point is that the mind that cranks out 'He's a nice guy, really. The Devil made him do it,' is not the same mind that realizes that this nice guy had some kind of psychotic break and needs help very badly...."
Well, it depends. Such a way of speaking may be colloquial, and doesn't by itself absolutely indicate a disbelief in the effectiveness of modern psychopharmacology. If it does indicate such disbelief, well, bad news for everyone, same as when anybody for any reason ignores the possibility of available medical help.
You also credited me with what I think was Brandon's (#41) point, that religion can be an organizing principle for good. I feel, simply and trivially, that religion can be an organizing principle for good or evil (food drives vs. The Crusades, etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam). It has undoubtedly been one of the most powerful such forces for both in history, quite unsurprisingly.
I also feel, in terms of the chicken-and-egg question, that human good and evil impulses pre-exist religion and other such organizing principles, and that these principles (e.g., spreading freedom and democracy abroad) will be used to amplify these impulses forever and ever, world without end, Amen or no Amen.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 21, 2007 1:13 PM
He's not a bigamist, he's an octogamist! (And can anyone cite a law against octogamy? Where?)
At the most, he's a bigamist cubed.
Posted by: Mike | May 21, 2007 1:21 PM
"Note the guy said he was stessed, not that the devil did it, that was his wife rationalizing."
Stressed? Isn't that a naturalistic/materialistic excuse?
Posted by: JRS | May 21, 2007 1:26 PM
I have a really sick feeling after reading that. How disgusting. I would imagine that alcohol and/or drugs were involved, and that the parents are simply invoking religion because it's the only way anyone is going to sympathize with them.
Did you see the video attached to that article though? At the end of it, the hotel manager says that it makes him want to have cameras in the rooms. Think about that. You could be getting it on in your room (with your opposite sex spouse wed in holy matrimony, of course), and the hotel manager would be eating chips off his chest, leaning back in his chair and watching you on the security cam. How delightful! But at least he would know the instant you went crazy and decided to microwave a baby.
Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2007 1:29 PM
I know everyone's been tongue-in-cheek about how much an infant should know about Christianity, but there is a real-life exemplar of this "belief" that is bigger than anyone would like to think possible. Google Gary Ezzo and prepare to vomit.
He and his wife have a multimillion-dollar industry promoting their own brand of raising children (Growing Kids God's Way), and it's based on teaching children to learn the consequences of their evil nature starting in infancy. There was an uproar a few years ago when several infants brought into emergency rooms across the country with dehydration turned out to be victims of the Ezzos' suggested feeding schedule. You see, when babies cry, it's not because they need something, it's because they're being selfish and sinful and have to be taught obedience. I'm not making this up - I wish I were. The Ezzos were thrown out of their own home church and have amassed a huge amount of criticism from both secular and Christian psychologists, pediatricians, and theologians, but are still raking in the money persuading Christians that their parenting style is really what God wants.
Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2007 1:31 PM
Sorry, I meant to do a link to his name. This site is a compendium of the insanity of the Ezzos.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 21, 2007 1:32 PM
CalGeorge gets my next Molly vote for #47.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 21, 2007 1:38 PM
Hi Jud,
Yes, the baby lived and will be ok, and I believe we're all relieved. I forgot to mention that her burns are probably less sever than those inflicted upon a toddler up here in Boston several years ago, by her mother, through the punative application of boiling water. IIRC, neither religion nor mental illness were implicated in that crime. It seems the mother was just an evil, sadistic bitch. :-|
You're quite right, I conflated your post with Brandon's. Sorry. Sloppy me.
You are right again. We don't really know where (or if) psychotherapy and psychpharm fit into her belief system. However, I think you missed a key element here, which the wife's explicitly stated assessment of Satan's role:
She wasn't just saying "I have no idea why he didn't, it's not like him." She was ascribing action AND motivation to this external, supernatural entity. It wasn't just a colloquialism or a metaphor. Statements like that rise up from a foundation of genuine belief, don't you think?
Of course, it's possible that she can holds these beliefs, which lead her to fall back on supernatural explanations in times of grief and despair, and yet may still be able to subsequently recognize that the true cause is mental illness... but on this point, we can only speculate.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 21, 2007 1:42 PM
Carlie - WOW. That's appalling.
Posted by: CJColucci | May 21, 2007 2:01 PM
This past summer, I caught part of a trial on Court TV -- I think it was even in Texas -- where the defendant pleaded insanity and claimed that Satan told her to kill whoever she killed. In the particular state (again, I think it was Texas), the insanity defense is limited to those who are incapable of appreciating the wrongness of their axctions. I heard a prosecution psychiatrist testify that the defendant wasn't, by that standard, insane. He "reasoned" that if she thought GOD had told her to kill, she wouldn't know the killing was wrong because God is good. But because she believed that SATAN told her to kill, she wasn't insane because she, since Stan is evil, she knew that the killing was wrong.
I'm not kidding.
I think she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but I'm not sure. I am sure about the preposterous testimony.
Posted by: CJColucci | May 21, 2007 2:03 PM
I meant, of course, "since SATAN is evil." My apologies to Stan.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | May 21, 2007 2:21 PM
So, has this changed your opinion on eugenics at all? Even if these two whackjobs aren't genetically predisposed towards their insanity, they sure as _HELL_ shouldn't be allowed to have any more children.
Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2007 2:44 PM
If they just kept quiet about atheism, no one would even try to push ID in the schools.
I'm sorry, but... hahahahahahahahaha!!!! That was a good one.
Posted by: sailor | May 21, 2007 3:08 PM
"He "reasoned" that if she thought GOD had told her to kill, she wouldn't know the killing was wrong because God is good. But because she believed that SATAN told her to kill, she wasn't insane because she, since Stan is evil, she knew that the killing was wrong."
Makes a lot of sense to me, given our biblical society. After all we should EXPECT that Satan would tempt us, and know well enough not to do anything she says. If on the other hand God told you to kill the child - well you would have to do it - just like Abraham was prepared to, even if society would hang you. But they wont. Because anyone who thinks God tells them to kill a baby must be absolutely crazy. Always go for the God defence, never the Satan defence! If you can convince them on the God defence you are home free (or at least in a sanatarium).
Posted by: Stan | May 21, 2007 3:11 PM
No sweat, CJ. I get that a lot.
Posted by: llewelly | May 21, 2007 3:44 PM
The medical community has a long record of approaching problems as diseases and solving them.
The criminal justice community has no similarly successful record of reducing crime.
Posted by: Carl Gordon | May 21, 2007 4:00 PM
It's confusing. If you're a believer and buy into that whole scam about Jesus (not the guy that mows my lawn) running the whole show, including letting the bad guy Satan (not the vice president) unleash his anti-social behavior upon a nation blessed by god (jesus's dad? I thought Joseph was the father - so confusing) because, eh, er, we're "blessed", I guess frying your baby's 2 month old noodle because it doesn't read the bible, uh, er, makes "sense". I can just picture the whole cast and crew, knocking off after hours, having a smoke and a beer, Satan standing there saying, "Hey Jessie, that latest script you wrote for me was wacky! I thought you'd never top yourself after that Jim Jones thing and bailing on the Jews during WWII, but this, this is pure genius, you nut!". Jesus is sitting there, with that smirk of his, a half a butt sticking out of his lips, an aura of smugness permeating the room like he just dropped wolf bait. "Yeah, I really burned the midnight oil on that one. Ha ha, those christian fundamentalists - what a bunch of morons! They just don't get it, do they? We're all just actors living out some seriously sick shit. We all work for the same guy!".
Posted by: Leon | May 21, 2007 4:20 PM
That's a good question, sailor. As the father of a needy child, I understand how the stress of dealing with them at their worst (screaming all night when all you want to do is sleep, etc.) can sometimes ramp up your stress level enough to make you want to do something like shake the little bugger.But putting the infant in a microwave and turning it on is different somehow. Not only does your instinctive reaction have a more visceral "wrong" feel because you're using tools and radiation to injure your own, but I think it also suggests a much more deliberate, premeditated act. It's not an instant reaction; it's a series of steps you have to take in order to commit a cruelty.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 21, 2007 4:47 PM
Yes, certainly. Either that, or it's insanity.
This has "psychotic break" written all over it. IMO. It reminds me of the story of the well-adjusted and successful college-aged guy who one day, for no reason, killed his pet hamster. His parents found him some time later, still desparately (and remorsefully) trying to revive the little critter via CPR. Needless to say, they were shocked and disturbed.
The onset of schizophrenia is a life-altering event. This microwave story has the same sort of feel to it.
The claim that "God told him to move to Galveston" is a psychological red flag - to people like us. But not to them or to many of the people they know. Nuking the tot, however, is a fireworks display from wherever you stand.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 21, 2007 5:11 PM
I'm inclined to agree. As a father myself I cannot believe that anyone but a delusional psychotic or outright sociopath would harm an infant in a way that requires more than a second or two to contemplate and execute--long enough for even extremely poor impulse control to kick in, in other words. O.o (By contrast, I can at least understand the psychology behind impulsive acts of violence like hitting or shaking--they're over before that person's lazy conscience can stop them).
Posted by: Frau Im Mond | May 21, 2007 5:17 PM
Maybe Satan was actually the baby's father, and this was his way of trying to gain custody...
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 21, 2007 5:33 PM
You don't believe that yourself, so I must conclude you're a concern troll.
Posted by: RavenT | May 21, 2007 5:38 PM
Azkyroth, I think you're on to something there. Most of the parent-on-child violence that I've been unfortunate enough to witness would fit what you describe. Poor impulse control (rather than "evil" or the level of insanity described above) certainly doesn't excuse the perps, but it may just be a very good description of what's going on, and useful in that it points to ways to address the problem (in future, for others with the same problem, that is--the cases I'm thinking about are long dead, and I was a child when I witnessed them).
I had never thought of it that way before--thanks for the insight.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 21, 2007 5:43 PM