Pharyngula

Posted by: David Lee | August 28, 2009 8:35 AM

The sooner we get rid of religion the better.

Posted by: Matt H. | August 28, 2009 8:37 AM

It is a shame there is not a hell for him to go to.

Posted by: Stanton | August 28, 2009 8:46 AM

So, I don't get it: did he find God in order to neutralize his guilt over kidnapping and raping that girl, while imprisoning her in his backyard for 18 years, or did he find God as an excuse for kidnapping and raping that girl, while imprisoning her in his backyard for 18 years?

If I were a worse person, I'd recommend we do to him what Jesus recommends, and tie a millstone around his neck before heaving him into the sea.

Posted by: Stephanie | August 28, 2009 8:47 AM

My thoughts exactly Matt.

Posted by: Budbear | August 28, 2009 8:50 AM

Wow! That's some 5-alarm crazy right there. Seriously.
The question remains: Did he get all religious because he was nuts or did he become nuts because of his religion?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 8:55 AM

This would suggest that at the time when he initially perpetrated his crimes he either had no/far more moderate religious convictions, and continued to commit crimes even when he became more religious. The main reason it would appear he did these things is because he was mentally unstable in some way (eg some kind of personality disorder or whatever) as you say. religion appears to have been fairly unimportant in his general conduct given that he was committing similar crimes both before and after he adopted strong religious views.

if you read the very title of this post

Religion as a refuge for the criminally insane

My emphasis.

religion appears to have been fairly unimportant in his general conduct given that he was committing similar crimes both before and after he adopted strong religious views.

Where do you get the info that his religious views weren't strong at the point of the kidnapping? Just becuase they got "stronger" doesn't mean they weren't strong at the time. And the kidnapping was obviously a result of his sexual perversions / criminality but his religious views didn't stop him. If anything they excused his conduct then and as he continued to keep her and their children (by rape) imprisoned.

You are assuming a lot.

Posted by: Mr Ash | August 28, 2009 8:59 AM

According to her step father, it is a "miracle" that she has been found

Posted by: formosus | August 28, 2009 9:00 AM

So he raped the love of jesus into her? Religion may or may not cause lunacy on this scale, but it sure as hell supports it.

Posted by: pikeamus | August 28, 2009 9:03 AM

Crimes of this type leave me feeling physically ill. I actually can't think of anything else to say, I am so angry now that nothing else comes to mind.

Posted by: VeganFatAss | August 28, 2009 9:04 AM

I agree with astromash; Crazy to religion as honey is to flies. Rationality just doesn't work with the crazy. It's an attractive combo.

However, I wonder if his god-talk let people avoid examining him more closely, if they had some suspicion of criminal behavior.

Posted by: Mr T | August 28, 2009 9:05 AM

religion appears to have been fairly unimportant in his general conduct given that he was committing similar crimes both before and after he adopted strong religious views.

So you're saying this religion stuff is all just a scam he's using to get sympathy from people, followed perhaps with a Dateline special and a bestseller-autobiography? Inconceivable!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 9:09 AM

Rev... while I see your point, I think the inference is that he found it easy to find justification for his actions and behavior within his religion, as well as an easy path to penance and forgiveness for his prior "sins"... just find religion, all your past evils are forgiven and then it's really just a few mental acrobatics to justifying pretty much any abhorrent behavior you want... hence the use of the term "refuge".

That's my take on it anyhow...

I think that's what I was saying?

Posted by: Sigmund | August 28, 2009 9:13 AM

While I can see this case is somewhat useful to counter the sort of argument that goes "if people didn't believe in God they'd go out and kidnap and rape children", I really don't see the religious angle as critical in this case.
To put it another way this guys religion was probably about as relevant to his behaviour as Stalins atheism was to his behaviour - in other words not at all - their terrible actions were due to the simple fact they were sick bastards.

Posted by: rnb | August 28, 2009 9:14 AM

Sound like a big "I told you so" time for the stepfather.
Wonder if he will get an apology.

Posted by: SeeDubya | August 28, 2009 9:17 AM

It makes me sick to think that this guy might have been able to convince this poor girl that everything happening to her was perfectly legitimate. All that would have been required of her was belief in god and the infallibilty of (insert whatever Abrahamic holy book you prefer here).

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 9:19 AM

Rev...

Hmmm... how the hell did I totally mis-read your post so completely? Clearly I need more coffee... or alcohol... or both.

I have no excuse.

Mah bad.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 9:21 AM

I tend to agree with Rob @8 - this guy is plainly insane, and his religious convictions seem to be a consequence of his madness, not the other way around.

I don't think anyone is saying different? They didn;t cause his insanity / criminality but they were used by him to excuse it.

Posted by: maddogdelta | August 28, 2009 9:24 AM

@Sigmund #25

To put it another way this guys religion was probably about as relevant to his behaviour as Stalins atheism was to his behaviour -

I think you miss a key point. If I, as an atheist, start spouting about the voices I hear, people around me figure I'm nuts and get me treatment.

If I were religious, and I start spouting about the angels talking to me, people around me figure I'm blessed by god and listen to my rants as though they are his word. (I'm looking at you, Jeanne la Pucelle!)

So, how many people noticed this guy's rantings in real life or in his blog (like maybe his parole officer), and gave him a pass because he is religious? Could the kidnapping been discovered years earlier if they chalked him up as a looney tune 10 years ago instead of nodding their heads and saying "isn't it nice that he has religion now?"

Posted by: blueelm | August 28, 2009 9:26 AM

I notice that although he turned his life around he still imprisoned human beings as sex slaves in conditions most dogs don't have to endure.

Nice...

but *he* felt better and I guess that's what matters to a sociopath.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 28, 2009 9:28 AM

Well, it looks like we've got our very own counterpart to that monster they caught in Austria. I don't know whether his religion was the cause or effect of his craziness, or purely a correlation, but it certainly didn't stop him from behaving like a monster.

Posted by: Mr T | August 28, 2009 9:32 AM

but *he* felt better and I guess that's what matters to a sociopath.

That's also the exact same thing that matters with religious experiences. That is the point that people who would say something like, "This isn't necessarily religion-motivated..." need to understand.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 9:32 AM

forgiveniness

While a cute mis-spelling of the word... it's not a real word. Yup... definitely need more coffee.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2009 9:37 AM

Yup... definitely need more coffee.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 9:40 AM

I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that Garrido's criminal insanity is the result of religion.

sigh. I don't think anyone is suggesting this.

Posted by: Captain Mike | August 28, 2009 9:42 AM

"When religion is responsible for such great evil, it doesn't help our cause to blame it for something that is much more likely to be plain old insanity."

Whoa, hold on a second there Maestro. We have a cause now? I don't remember signing anything.

Posted by: atheist_goat | August 28, 2009 9:45 AM

maddogdelta, EXACTLY. The mention in the bbc article that he couldn't have been "seriously disturbed" or he would have been caught earlier infuriates me. It is difficult to see how someone could have been more seriously or obviously disturbed, but as long as madness like that is cloaked in religion America thinks it's not only normal, but laudable. Someone talking about "guidance from the angels" is actually saying, "I do what the voices in my head tell me to do." Our culture really needs to strip away the all-access-pass that is religion and focus on the reality of this kind of mental problem: his belief that the voices he is hearing are angels' voices does not change the fact that he is hearing voices in his head tell him what to do and he is obeying them. Seriously.

Posted by: Captain Mike | August 28, 2009 9:47 AM

If you ever go insane and start hearing voices, don't do what a lot of people do and commit horrible crimes. Instead, try to get some gardening done, because I bet you'd be really surprised.*

*Paraphrased from Jack Handy.

Posted by: Blondin | August 28, 2009 9:48 AM

Could 'forgiveniness' be related to forgiveness the way 'truthiness' is related to truth?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 9:51 AM

Could 'forgiveniness' be related to forgiveness the way 'truthiness' is related to truth?

Heh... I was going to use "clean" and "cleanliness"... but yours is way funnier.

Posted by: Laurel | August 28, 2009 9:57 AM

I'm wrestling with this one. The man seems to have poured his crazy into the container provided, so the crazy took the shape of the container. But the container is already crazy--promoting rape, contradicting itself all over the place, legitimizing hallucinations, etc. This guy's "crazy" only to people who can see outside the container or rationalize parts of it away--if we couldn't, we'd agree with his assessment of himself, because the OT is pretty big on this kind of thing. So isn't some of the trouble with the actual container?

I mean, he wants a big fat cookie for not raping the girls he fathered on his rape victim every night as they slept, captive, in his bed. Sounds par for a misogynistic monotheism to me--as does his making this story of a stolen child and the children she was forced to bear into a "powerful, heartwarming story" about him and god.

I guess what I'm wondering is, outside the constant reinforcement of male-dominated societies provided by three powerful religions that say "men rule, women are chattel," would this stuff have even happened? Or might the crazy have taken a different shape altogether?

Posted by: FPT | August 28, 2009 10:01 AM

This is the problem with "God," in general. It just gives people excuses to act in ways that would normally be seen as morally reprehensible and justify it to themselves through their "God." Or, they can kidnap and rape a girl, then say they've "found God" and all should be forgiven, as far as they're concerned.

I really hope this is another step towards the ultimate death of religion. But, it probably won't be, because the first thing out of the religious mouth will be, "That's not OUR religion. He was sick. You can't judge religion because of this!"

Posted by: mm | August 28, 2009 10:06 AM

Someone is actually defending this asshole.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4751151745311616135&postID=8123069408507170406

Look at the comment by tommy

Here is a small part of it...

"You can see for yourself by looking at this website, all the tireless good work this man has done in the name of the lord. I for one have benefited very much from his teachings and wisdom, and I'm going to stand by him like a true brother in his darkest times, even while you pagans dance around in your circles shoving your spears into him. You obviously were raised in the gutter if you cannot show any respect for a man of the cloth. This is another prime example of the lack of family values of your sick country.
Phillip Craig Garrido is a kind and caring man who tried to give an 11 year old girl a stable environment. And he kept her safe for two decades."

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 10:06 AM

for every one of these guys there's a Timothy McVeigh who apparently affirmed (amongst a variety of other beliefs at various times) that 'science is my religion'.

Serious citation needed there, bub... you really think it's an even distribution? Please.

I don't think anyone apart from a few people is claiming the former point on either side.

Actually, several people made just that claim... and it was to those people I was responding... directly, even.

I think, like myself, they are saying that since he was committing these crimes, all he needed was some way of convincing himself it was OK, if it hadn't been religion, he'd have no doubt found some other justification

OK, Rob... but time for some intellectual honesty here... is it not true that a) it is far too often religion that serves as that excuse? And b) that religion, by its nature, is set up in such a way as to allow for abhorrent behavior to be forgiven by penance, and justified by vague interpretation? I think that is the point being made... one I happen to agree with strongly.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | August 28, 2009 10:12 AM

What I find even scarier than the case itself is reading the comments on the guy's blog (all post-arrest).

The mixture of vicious hatred (over something that doesn't personally affect them), the certainty he's "going to Hell", the gleeful anticipation of him suffering never-ending rape in prison and meeting Jesus with an "XXXL arsehole" etc!

Why do these people feel the need to post to someone who now will, pretty obviously, never see the internet again?

And then there are the real weirdos, such as the one who posted "You are the typical example of the average homosexual", while accompanying the post with a picture of himself naked, and semi-erect. (And if you click on his picture he tells you he's "a straight man who enjoys homosexual fantasies while jerking off")!

You couldn't make it up.

Posted by: Rey Fox | August 28, 2009 10:17 AM

What always gets me about these cases is the resources involved. A "backyard within a backyard", hidden from view by outbuildings and tarpaulin, and who knows what other means (there doesn't seem to be any mention of any indoor structures inside). All to keep a girl, and later her family, for this guy's sole property. Mind-boggling.

What I wonder is what role his wife played in all of this. I'm guessing that religion might play an even more significant role there.

Posted by: raven | August 28, 2009 10:23 AM

Xian morality doesn't exist. As PZ points out, religion can be a refuge for the crazy. And evil. For every Sondido, Cho Seung, Michelle Bachmann, George Bush, or Garrido there are thousands or millions that are less violent but fruitbat crazy nonetheless.

Cue the "Garrido was really an atheist" xian liars in 10 9 8 7 .....
Cue the "Garrido wasn't a Real Xian(tm)" xian liars in 10 9 8 7......
They are so predicable.

for every one of these guys there's a Timothy McVeigh who apparently affirmed (amongst a variety of other beliefs at various times) that 'science is my religion'.

This is probably a lie along the lines of "Hitler was an atheist." Timothy McVeigh was avenging the Branch Davidians, a toxic fundie xian cult that ended up in a gun battle with the feds. Fundies lie a lot and make up quotes when they aren't quote mining. Xian morality doesn't exist.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 28, 2009 10:24 AM

I see Captain Mike (@48) beat me to the defense of the word miracle. In fact, to me the secular sense of an unlikely or unexpected event that happens against all odds has always seemed like the core meaning, and attribution of said unlikely event to supernatural causes seems like a special case of the general meaning.

That's not based on any etymological study, mind you — I left my OED in my other pants — but my experience has been that only a tiny fraction of people I've heard say "it's a miracle" or refer to something as "miraculous" have actually been invoking divine intervention. And I grew up in the Bible Belt....

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 10:31 AM

I really doubt that anyone would have done something about this fellow if he were instead spouting paranoia about the government or even warning about aliens and thought control.

Feh... gimme a break, Tulse... I find your defense to be a fairly weak argument. It's far more likely that he would have attracted more attention doing this than blabbing about religion. In fact when he was caught he was on the street blabbing about religion, but that's not why he was caught. He was caught because he was recognized as a registered sex-offender with two little girls standing next to him. If not for that, no-one would have even given him a second look for babbling religion on the street. If he were babbling government conspiracies and aliens and the like, you can bet he would have drawn more attention as a nuisance at least.

As I already stated, the problem is that religion is set up to allow for forgiveness by simply believing, is pervasive enough as to be accepted by most everyone, and interpratable enough as to be twisted into justification for just about anything.

Posted by: heliobates | August 28, 2009 10:35 AM

This reminds me of an episode of The Gilmore Girls...

Ya lost me, Coach.

Posted by: Hank | August 28, 2009 10:37 AM

Dear PZ:

I'm sorry, I gotta stop reading your blog. I mean, I like it and all, but what with the economy in the tank and me on a fixed income, I can't afford all the beer I need to sedate myself after reading about these mouth breathers you keep turning up. Especially since I prefer micro-brews and that stuff's expensive. If, however, you could send me a couple of bucks for a six pack or two, I'd continue reading. Promise.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 10:41 AM

There are plenty of examples of the institutions of religion believing idiotic notions and doing terrible things (such as homophobia, anti-abortion activism, even the pedophilia coverup in the Catholic Church). Highlighting random schizophrenics with religious delusions is very weak tea, and in my view makes atheists look as undiscerning as our critics sometime charge.

Expanding on #77 above... the point is being made about the institution of religion, and how it is set up to be such an easy refuge for abhorrent behavior, schizophrenic or not. It's not about highlighting the "one guy"... it's not as if there are so few examples, Tulse... this one just happened to jump out, and provides an apt example.

Posted by: Michelle R | August 28, 2009 10:43 AM

@Rolan #74: You're right. I should've included her parents and her stepfather (who was seen as the possible monster for years.) in the deal.

But the girls that were born out of this... I'm terribly worried about what they'll grow up to be. There's not a lot of info about their mother too. What does she think? Does she have Stockholm's?

Posted by: ATL-Apostate | August 28, 2009 10:45 AM

Aside from the utterly repulsive nature of the crime, the fact that this man is, apparently, very truly actually bat-shit insane means he will probably avoid prison time. From browsing his blog, it appears he has schizophrenia.

PS - Long time lurker. First time poster.

Posted by: Emily | August 28, 2009 10:46 AM

Random Quote, at time of reading above:

The Christian view that all intercourse outside marriage is immoral was, as we see in the above passages from St. Paul, based upon the view that all sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is regrettable. A view of this sort, which goes against biological facts, can only be regarded by sane people as a morbid aberration. The fact that it is embedded in Christian ethics has made Christianity throughout its whole history a force tending towards mental disorders and unwholesome views of life.

[Bertrand Russell]

(My emphasis)

Posted by: tms | August 28, 2009 11:02 AM

Hey PZ,

Yes, but they finally got rid of the State's Christmas nativity display. Too bad they won't allow a Festivus Pole either.

T

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 28, 2009 11:09 AM

I woke up to the radio news this AM, and when they reported the suspect hinting about a "heart-warming ending", I said to my wife: "You watch -- he found Jeeeezzzzuzzzz".

Sometimes I hate being right.

That being said, I tend to agree with Tulse, above: the main factor here is mental illness. There's an interaction with religion, but not a simple one.

(Aside: Whatthehell is this guy doing giving media interviews, right after being arrested? That's fucking creepy and voyeuristic.)

Posted by: Doug | August 28, 2009 11:11 AM

I read these things, and it makes me wonder how many other children there are who at this very minute are suffering the same way this girl did. I wonder of there are any children in my small town being held prisoner and tortured by insane, twisted people? I wonder what sort of life the victim in this story can look forward to? She must be in her late 20s now, is there any way to salvage some peace and happiness for her? This story really depressed me.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | August 28, 2009 11:19 AM

@ Laurel #76
not sure why we're arguing

"Really?" Well, yes. I find the Garrido's crimes (Power and Sex) slightly more comprehensible than the wish-crimes of the Garrido blog commenters (Sadistic Mulitilation). At least the Garridos are in custody, unlike the countless sickos who posted stuff like :-

.........."If I could only get my hands on you, I'd stab you to death and play with your blood, then go have a big mac and a nice long nap."

"You should burn in hell but your cunty wife who completely lost her sense of woman and motherhood should have a red hot poker shoved up her twat throughout eternity."

"i hope they tie your dick in a tourniquet until it falls off... then slowly feed you your balls. that is, after they remove your teeth one by one, without anesthetic. chew on your dead balls, motherfucker."

"I sincerely hope that you get tortured, beaten and mutilated whilst you are in prison. I pray that satan himself causes you to suffer the most immense, prolonged suffering possible for a human to endure. When your pathetic carcass is finally an empty shell and your soul has left your body, I hope from the bottom of my heart that you burn in hellfire for eternity.".........

Gee, a lot of crazy people out on the loose.

And I think you misread me, as you ending by saying "Prison rape jokes, the actual rape of a child over a decade or two--it's hard to decide which is worse, amirite? haha."

Firstly, I wasn't comparing those things. Secondly, what "jokes" about prison rape?. I don't think anyone who posted about it was joking, and I certainly don't find anything amusing in it, any more than I would about the rape of anyone. In fact I hate the way male prison rape seems to be an acceptable joke nowdays. Virtually every "cop show" has detectives wink-winking at the suspect "you're too pretty for jail, better tell us everything".
What? It's perfectly acceptable to everyone now that rape is part of your normal prison sentence in the USA?

Finally, excuse me if you took my post to lack sufficient compassion. How many, unknown to us, horrific crimes are committed every minute? How may children die of disease and hunger every minute. It's not possible to retain one's sanity and feel "outrage" for everything. I'm old, and tired.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 28, 2009 11:27 AM

Raven, #71

You said,

Xian morality doesn't exist.

Does the fact people violate secular law mean secular law does not exist?

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | August 28, 2009 11:43 AM

I notice that both the children Garrido fathered on Ms Dugard are, conveniently, female.
I hope they were the only children born.

Posted by: Michelle R | August 28, 2009 11:47 AM

@Ring Tailed Lemurian:

About the blog comments, you're right. You can't wish violence on the man, just like you can't wish him to die. (I'm against death penalty and such.)

However, I reserve myself the right to wish for him to live the rest of his miserable, scummy life in prison.

I think there is no punishment great enough to fit his crime. But life in prison is the highest punishment a civil society should give his kind.

I understand the anger at him. It's hard to express it decently.

Personally I feel some anger at justice. I'm not saying it's a rational reaction from me, but this isn't the first time this man commits offenses like that. And he was back on the streets. But yea, irrational reaction. It's not like we can attach a guy to him 24/7 to monitor his every actions.

Posted by: amphiox | August 28, 2009 11:57 AM

If I had to guess, I would wager that this crazy law got passed because it was tacked in as an afterthought on some much larger bill. Those representatives who voted in favor of it either did not notice it was there (admittedly an abrogation of their professional responsibility here), or wanted some other part of the bill passed and did not think this little add-on was worth dumping the whole bill, or thought it was so crazy and applied to such a small segment of the population that it would not matter.

The number who actually supported this law explicitly were probably a tiny minority.

Posted by: Laurel | August 28, 2009 12:00 PM

RTL--I reacted that way because you said you find the crimes less scary (now less comprehensible) than blog posts in which people fantasize about things they will most likely never do. If this is so, I find it disturbing.

Maybe I should explain that I see the impulse to rant and threaten terrible menace "more comprehensible" than a decade of child rape in part because said ranting is a common way for posters to display that they are better than the criminal. It's what people do on the internet when crimes involving women, children and/or animals come to light.

I actually agree with you on the prison rape stuff, and I'm sorry I expressed that so poorly. I typed prison rape "jokes" because they bug me so much, but you're right, the commentors don't seem to be joking. I hear lots of "jokes" on the subject, and I find it really disturbing that so few people ever seem to get called out on them. So thanks for calling commentors out on such remarks.

It doesn't make sense to you that that being too "old and tired" to get upset about this crime, but having plenty of youthful energy to be appalled at comments about it, could be taken as belittling the experiences of the actual victims?

Posted by: Ktesibios | August 28, 2009 12:01 PM

The kidnap victim would be around 29 now. She has been deprived of all education and social interaction since she was 11. She is going to need really serious help just to cope with re-entering normal society and might need it for her entire life. Her two children, having never had any education or socialization, will have an even harder row to hoe in life.

I hope that there is some legal mechanism by which every speck of property this monster possesses can be seized, sold and used to fund the services which they will need.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 28, 2009 12:25 PM

It's easy to guess what this Sundays sermon will be about, denial.

Posted by: MikeM | August 28, 2009 12:27 PM

Garrido has a long history. Check out this story.

He paroled from 50 year and 5-to-life sentences in 1988 for a kidnapping and rape he committed in 1976. We all have differing views as to how long someone should be in jail for kidnapping and rape; you can put me in the column that says 11 years is not enough.

I am sure not blaming religion for Garrido. I don't think he's a representitive example. However, it still points out a problem for me: All people have to do is say they're Christian, and they're a pastor, and they've been bathed in the blood of the lamb (or some other violent imagery), and he'll get a flock around him. People will just buy anything he says after that.

Garrido's wife would appear to be complicit here, too.

According to this Bee article, Garrido found religion later in life. He blamed his rape of 1976 on LSD.

Posted by: MikeM | August 28, 2009 12:34 PM

I hope that there is some legal mechanism by which every speck of property this monster possesses can be seized, sold and used to fund the services which they will need.

Blah, have you seen the google map and street view of the property? Antioch is hardly a garden spot anyway, but this is like the bad part of Antioch. Even in California, I can't see that property being worth more than $50k. Hardly a dime for the three victims in this case.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | August 28, 2009 12:35 PM

I find it outrageous that some people here on Pharyngula are wishing pain, death, or eternal torment on Phillip Garrido and/or his wife (or anybody for that matter). What he/they did was wrong. Wrong in ways I cannot express, but it is obvious that he is bat-shit crazy in ways I can't even wrap my mind around. He needs to be locked away for his own good and for the good of others. Not out of revenge but because it's the right thing to do.

This whole story is a tragedy from start to finish; but maybe if we had recognized that Phil Garrido was mentally unstable the first time he was arrested for child molestation and got him help we wouldn't be reading about this horror now. Instead we warehoused him for a couple years then put him back on the streets. The initial kneejerk response to any story involving child molestation today always seems to be a demand to shoot the rabid dog and be done with him. That certainly makes sure that anybody suffering paedophilia that has not acted on those feelings never seeks treatment. That’s a perfect way to make sure there is another tragedy for the news stream in 6 months. Wasn't it 6 months ago that we were talking about another victim of molestation that was found in a suitcase at the bottom of a pond?

No, I don't think Phil Garrido deserves pity. What he did was evil and vile. That doesn't mean we can be evil and vile in return. Instead I hope he will finally get the treatment he needs even as he receives the punishment he deserves. If you want to stop shit like this from happening you have to treat the cause, not point and assign blame. Until you treat the cause it will happen again and again.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 12:43 PM

According to this Bee article, Garrido found religion later in life. He blamed his rape of 1976 on LSD.

Funny that. I've never raped anyone.

Posted by: What | August 28, 2009 12:53 PM

DGK # 115

Not out of revenge but because it's the right thing to do.

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 28, 2009 1:12 PM

I posted this earlier (#16):

"If you look at Google maps at the address of this guy, which was noted elsewhere online as 1554 Walnut Avenue, Antioch, CA 94509, you can see the yard where she was allegedly kept. The yard is full of junk and sheds covered with blue tarps."

Since then, I look at it again, and it suddenly hit me ... SHE'S IN THERE.

At the time the satellite photo was taken, somewhere under those blue tarps, this young woman was living, and had lived for years, in captivity.

And I can never get over the fact that neighbors in these cases seem so oblivious. I mean, I don't exactly want people spying on others over the back wall, but can you REALLY live next door to someone for years and have NO idea what they're doing?

Posted by: Akiko | August 28, 2009 1:16 PM

Five bucks he says god told him to rape that child and their two children. That he was told she was his spiritual wife. Assholes like this always scream and holler how much they love god when they get caught.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 28, 2009 1:22 PM

Hank Fox (@122):

Thanks for mentioning that; I thought it was just some sort of brain cramp on the part of my local system and/or browser.

Posted by: MikeM | August 28, 2009 1:29 PM

It's a denial of roman-type attack!

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 28, 2009 1:35 PM

Concerning the role of religion in this affair, this is from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8226329.stm:

"Criminal psychologist Dr David Holmes has examined the telephone interview given by alleged kidnapper Phillip Garrido from prison to the KCRA-TV station in California.

Jaycee's alleged kidnapper Phillip Garrido: "I'm in a very serious situation"

I think he has got a lot more forensic awareness then perhaps we are assuming.

He's being portrayed as a highly religious, fragmented individual but he is very, very coherent.

He is very guarded against anyone who is trying to get factual information out of him, such as when the interviewer was trying to get him to reveal things.

He is really aware that anything he says now would be out there in public, and that would be something his lawyers would have to get around.

He hints that in the documents he keeps referring to is some form of religious revelation, some sort of religious forgiveness for him.

It is probably the births of the children, which he may suggest in some way have completely reformed him.

I think he is going to focus on this element, that his former self was guilty of heinous, unforgivable crimes but that he is now a reformed character.

I get the impression he will set his own mystified and constructed version of reality, in which he is some kind of God-chosen character.

He may refer to some kind of battle with heinous crimes, from which he comes back victorious and has seen the light through their horror.

Personality disorders

He's using religion as a reason why he should be immune from prosecution, because God has forgiven him.

Whenever the interviewer tries to undermine his view and tie his actions to his business, Mr Garrido becomes very forceful and starts to lay down the law as to what the person should think.

A lot of people with personality disorders defend themselves in this way and don't allow other views to be in their social proximity, which is probably what he's done in his household. It's a form of brainwashing."

[My emphasis]

Of course, this is based on an interview at which the psychologist was not present, but clearly he thinks Garrido is not an ordinary schizophrenic, but has a personality disorder combined with religious delusions and the intent to use the special status he has in these delusions, to justify or palliate his crimes. So if Holmes is right, Garrido's religiosity is not incidental to his evil actions as some here have claimed - any more than in the case of Jim Jones.

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 28, 2009 1:49 PM

Dustbubble #130: "Don't you people have any kind of planning controls?"

My impression is that those things are local-option. Some towns have viciously strict controls, others have little or none.

For instance, when I was growing up in Houston, Texas, we had no specific zoning ordinances -- such things were handled by deed restrictions in each subdivision. However, the deed restrictions expired after 25 years, unless voted to continue by the residents.

The subdivision I lived in, the restrictions had expired, and within one block of my house was a home-based beauty shop, a home based wrecker business, and a home-based rodeo arena (with horses and cattle onsite).

It wasn't as bad as it all sounds. It made for an interesting neighborhood, and it allowed each resident the freedom to do such stuff.

Plus, the rodeo people got me started with my cowboy career.

Posted by: JJ | August 28, 2009 2:07 PM

Of course, evildoers always look for refuge in the invisible deity. But perhaps "The Simpsons" put it better:

"Prayer... the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Posted by: DGKnipfer | August 28, 2009 2:37 PM

What #119,

Wishing that Hell existed so people who have committed terrible crimes can go there (Matt H. / #3) is not seeking to protect society. It is wishing for vengeance. Matt’s is just the first example of several. Thankfully, most of the posts on the board are not advocating a special Hell for obviously sick and mentally deranged people like Phil Garrido; but too many are.

Vengeance may make the people who witness an event feel better about having been unable to stop the event, but it doesn't prevent something similar from happening in the future. That's the problem with our judicial system. It's there to make us feel better when society fails to stop a crime. It grants us vengeance, not justice. Justice would apply an appropriate punishment and make sure that the convicted are capable of returning to society as a socially and morally capable member of society. Had Phil Garrido been treated for his sociological and psychological issues back in the 1970s when he was first sent to jail Jaycee Lee Dugard might not have spent 18 years in her own kind of living Hell.

I understand why people are so angry and why many wish great horror on Phil Garrido. I’m angry too; but if we are ever going to stop things like this from happening we have to figure out how to rehabilitate convicted felons. We have to learn how to treat the mental and psychological illness that drives this behavior. We can’t keep warehousing convicted felons like they’re some nasty garbage we can throw away and forget. Our prison system is too over crowded now and mass executions to clear the rooms isn’t a reasonable solution.

Posted by: Carl Buell | August 28, 2009 2:48 PM

I can do little or nothing for the people whose lives this man has ruined. What I personally hate most about this man and this story is that it causes the monster inside me to rear it's ugly head when I think of the what I'd like to happen to this broken fellow human being.

Posted by: What | August 28, 2009 2:49 PM

If he is schizophrenic he has apparently kept it hidden from neighbors and family. They all seem to be saying that he is nutty. But a full blown schizophrenic is more than a bit nutty. Furthermore the disease usual manifests itself in one's early 20s. This guy has been associating with family and neighbors for decades. He and his wife apparently are caring for his mother who is afflicted with dementia of some sort. By now one would think that they would have realized that he is a bit more than nutty if in fact he is schizophrenic.

Could he be a case of antisocial personality disorder (a sociopath) combined with pedophilia?

Posted by: Benny H | August 28, 2009 2:58 PM

Religious belief is not a factor in whether one is moral or not. It is, however, a factor in whether one claims to be more moral. Christians, in my area of the world, are especially prone to this conceit.

Also, I don't believe religious people are necessarily less sane than atheists but it is interesting how strong religious belief is often indistinguishable from insanity.

Posted by: Tulse | August 28, 2009 3:11 PM

So if Holmes is right, Garrido's religiosity is not incidental to his evil actions as some here have claimed - any more than in the case of Jim Jones.

Right, and some seriously deluded people used to think they were Napoleon, but I doubt you'd blame the former emperor for any of their crimes. Psychotic individuals are not made psychotic by whatever false belief system they espouse -- instead, their illness makes them susceptible to false beliefs, and they end up adopting whatever comes along (e.g., aliens are beaming thoughts into my head, the Queen of England and Masons are controlling the world governments, the CIA is stalking me with mind-control lasers). I agree that religion is often used by non-psychotic people to justify horrible acts, but I think focussing on how it impacts the severely mentally ill is a pretty lousy argument against it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 3:18 PM

There's just as much as case can be made that the poor kid was a victim of the "liberals", which, strangely enough is not mentioned here: all the comments above that the guy was schizophrenic (liberal reaction: oh...that's alright then), and that he'd been convicted twice -and still allowed to prowl the streets because of liberal views on crime and punishment.

Where has anyone said "that's alright" that he was a schizophrenic as an excuse for what he did?

Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 3:25 PM

@3

It is a shame there is not a hell for him to go to.

Yes, there is. It's called going to prison as a kiddy-diddler. He raped an 11 year old. The case is world famous and prisoners have TV. For him, solitary confinement will be his good days.

So, no worries. The rest of his life is going to SUCK.

Unless he gets into state mental hospital. But considering how those people are treated ... well, trade bed sores for shivs, but it will STILL SUCK.

Where's your GOD VOICE now, numbnuts?

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 28, 2009 3:33 PM

Eamon Knight #146

The Garrido home is 170 miles away from where she was taken. I can see it being pretty hard to trace a kidnapping that far. And I'm not sure it's reasonable to have expected the neighbours to have smelled something fishy -- you can hide a lot of stuff behind a perfectly reasonable level of suburban MYOB.

Oooh, suddenly the distances are sooo huuuge, whatever happened to what's a few hunded miles, that's like next door, dude ?

And, it's just been alleged on the news that a neighbour did tell the police that something very odd was happening in that yard but the investigation (sic) revealed nothing

Posted by: Leon | August 28, 2009 3:36 PM

The main reason it would appear he did these things is because he was mentally unstable in some way.... religion appears to have been fairly unimportant ... given that he was committing similar crimes both before and after he adopted strong religious views.

So given the above, when people comment with statements like:

---The sooner we get rid of religion the better.---

What difference would that have made (at least in this situation) exactly?

Rob, you may be right that his religion wouldn't have made a difference in his commission of the crimes. But it does make a big difference in the current situation, in how it's handled by society. Reading that article, I see him being almost portrayed sympathetically, likely because of his professed religiosity.

The tone of the article is very mild toward him, considering. And comments like "the birth of the first child 15 years ago had changed his life" are repeated without comment--omitting to mention that it apparently wasn't a big enough change in his life to turn himself in, or free the girl and their son, or even to keep him from continuing to rape her and produce another child.

The impression I get here is that the ugliness of what he did will be mitigated in people's minds by the thought that on some level, it's ok now, because he's all better now that he's found God. It may not affect his sentence, but it will be used in a perverse way by our religious society to reinforce its prejudices that, by definition, Christian=good and non-religious=bad.

Posted by: clausentum | August 28, 2009 3:44 PM

RBDC @ 145
just look at #136 and #138: what those guys now say about this criminal is ex post facto: a couple of weeks ago they would have argued that he should be "treated" and let loose on the public again. Liberals have a vast overestimation of the powers of psychology, which they use to propagate their political views. The fact is we know extremely little about these traits, and even less about treating them successfully. The more honest psychologists admit that they are probably acquired quite early in life, and are almost impossible to "treat".

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 3:48 PM

RBDC @ 145 just look at #136 and #138: what those guys now say about this criminal is ex post facto: a couple of weeks ago they would have argued that he should be "treated" and let loose on the public again. Liberals have a vast overestimation of the powers of psychology, which they use to propagate their political views. The fact is we know extremely little about these traits, and even less about treating them successfully. The more honest psychologists admit that they are probably acquired quite early in life, and are almost impossible to "treat".

I don't see either of those comments excusing what he did just offering ways some people with his same assumed mental illness can be treated. Note I said treated, not cured.

Liberal has nothing to do with it. Seems you have an axe to grind?

Posted by: Michelle R | August 28, 2009 3:56 PM

@clausentum: Would you rather have him killed? Death sentence, is that what you want?

I think life behind bars is the best way to go with this guy, but I fail to see what liberals have to do with him being back on the streets right now.

Posted by: Tulse | August 28, 2009 3:57 PM

The more honest psychologists admit that they are probably acquired quite early in life, and are almost impossible to "treat".

I'm both a liberal and have a background in clinical psychology, and I'd certainly agree with that statement.

Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 4:22 PM

Garrido is a schizo. Check out the blog like PZ says.

Religion does NOT make you moral. Garrido explains:

"What's kept me busy the last several years is I've completely turned my life around," Garrido said.

"And you're going to find the most powerful story coming from the witness, the victim - you wait. If you take this a step at a time, you're going to fall over backwards and in the end, you're going to find the most powerful heartwarming story."

Mr. Justified by the blood of the Lamb feels no compulsion to get right with Caesar.

Posted by: not a gator | August 28, 2009 4:29 PM

@152

If he goes to a federal facility it will likely be a lesser form of hell as federal facilities are not as overcrowded and are much better funded.

Actually, I would estimate that as a longer-lasting form of hell, as there is no hope of escape and your cellmates are dudes like "brain-eating guy".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 28, 2009 4:36 PM

clausentum #153

Liberals have a vast overestimation of the powers of psychology, which they use to propagate their political views.

Now that you've have a good whine about liberals, do you have anything constructive to say?

Posted by: jeremy | August 28, 2009 4:37 PM

your haiku are powerless against me cuttlefish

Posted by: MikeM | August 28, 2009 4:42 PM

Here is some text (not the transcript) of the apology:

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2146017.html

Posted by: c | August 28, 2009 4:50 PM

Now that you've have a good whine about liberals, do you have anything constructive to say?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and although it's so obvious I'd better spell it out for you:
The guy had been sentenced to 50yrs for his previous crime: why did he get out early to do even worse things the next time? Because of liberal views on crime and punishment.
Constructive suggestion: liberals shut your traps, and for once in your lives try a little humility. It's proven that in this case it would have saved a little girl a hellish experience.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | August 28, 2009 4:53 PM

clausentum @153,

Since you are pointing at two comments, "just look at #136 and #138" that are replies to my earlier statement (#135) that I believe people like Phil Garrido should be treated for their mental aberrations I a need to reply. I do not believe, and never believed that people like Phil Garrido should be treated and released. They should be treated and punished. The punishment should take into account how mentally competent the convicted felon was at the time he committed the crime; not at the time he is convicted. And under no condition should a mentally ill felon be released if he can be shown to be a high risk of re-offense.

I would be willing to bet that Phil Garrido would have shown a high risk of re-offense when first released from prison 30 years ago. Nothing was done back then to help him learn to manage his mental condition. He should have been held until it could be demonstrated that he was capable of managing his condition. Note that I say managing his condition. There is no cure for most mental illness. Mental illness can be treated and managed but rarely cured.

Our current prison system does crap all to help treat such mental illnesses as paedophilia. Perpetrators get a light to moderate sentence with minimal rehabilitation or treatment, spend a year to 10 years dodging a shiv, and then get dumped back onto the streets with no social support network, job, or hope of functioning in society. They are often ostracized by their own families and reviled by society. Within a few years they re-offend because they lack the mental and social skills to manage their deteriorating mental condition. This system does not work. And it leaves a long trail of social destruction in the wake of the mentally ill. We must do better at helping anybody convicted of such horrendous crimes as child molestation of never re-offending. And who is going to pay for all the jail cells if we lock them up and throw away the keys?

FYI, I am a moderate military retiree and an atheist. I have never been a liberal.

Daniel G. Knipfer

Posted by: kamaka | August 28, 2009 4:57 PM

Law enforcement has a lot to answer for here... a convicted kidnapper getting away with keeping a captive at his house for decades?

Why did the parole office never search his place in all this time? It's not like they need a warrant, or even a reason.

Why was his place not turned upside down when the neighbor called in? Again, no warrant needed... it just doesn't make sense that a guy with his background doesn't get his house thrown after that call. I'm a cop and I come up with his background on the way to check on him, I call for a dozen of my buddies to help search his place.

Something's...Not...Right...Here.

Posted by: MikeM | August 28, 2009 5:01 PM

c @171: In 1988, when Nevada release Garrido, they were a very conservative state... And they didn't take rape very seriously.

Next thing you're going to tell us is that Texas has a liberal, left-leaning court system.

Posted by: MikeM | August 28, 2009 5:06 PM

Posted by: becca | August 28, 2009 4:44 PM

oh, dear. Is this thread about to be taken over by knee-jerk conservatives too?
-----
Didn't have to wait long for your answer, did you?

I'm way past my posting limit here. I'm probably done for now.

Sorry if I'm taking this one so personally.

Posted by: spondee | August 28, 2009 5:13 PM

If he'd released his birth certificate, or some proof of circumcision, this never would have happened.

Posted by: becca | August 28, 2009 5:14 PM

MikeM @ #179 - where *are* they all coming from? I don't recall this being a normal infestation. Creationists I can understand wanting to come over here and try to convert us (or even just explain their position), but conservatives? on a science blog?

Posted by: kamaka | August 28, 2009 5:36 PM

becca @ 183

I don't get it why anyone gave the time of day to the blamer.of.liberals.

That's a troll that didn't deserve feeding.

Posted by: kamaka | August 28, 2009 6:20 PM

I just heard on the news that a search warrant is (finally) being executed at this creature's compound.

WTF? He's on parole! They don't need no stinkin' search warrant.

Again, why has it taken this long to search the monster's compound? The smug creep shows up at the parole office with his "family" and his place isn't being torn apart 10 minutes later?

Many years too late...good luck with all you find...

Posted by: raven | August 28, 2009 6:30 PM

clausentum the serial killer lying:

just look at #136 and #138: what those guys now say about this criminal is ex post facto: a couple of weeks ago they would have argued that he should be "treated" and let loose on the public again. Liberals ..etc..

What is it with fundie xians and their preoccupation with murder and lying as a hobby?
Clausentum the known kook, has just set up several strawmen. He then brutally, with deliberae foresight, murdered them. Won't anyone think of the poor strawmen!!!

Not being able to find much to twist, he is now just lying about people's thoughts and what they were thinking "a couple of weeks ago.". Right, a kook can read people's minds several weeks in the past about an event no one knew about until yesterday.

For the record, clausentum is sick in the head. But I don't think he is treatable. Just hope a loon like this doesn't live in your neighborhood and doesn't have contact with your children. Or pets. Or rutabagas.
More examples of xian morality.

Posted by: crewvy | August 28, 2009 7:06 PM

A rapist for god? I guess the catoholics will give him a priesthood, he certainly meets the criteria.

Posted by: tmaxPA | August 28, 2009 7:27 PM

With due reverence to the Big Dumb Chimp in question:

Of course not, but science doesn't claim to be a moral guide nor does it set itself up as a guideline for living your life.

Well here's something worth reading. You're more-or-less correct, I'll agree. But isn't this the problem? Science doesn't claim to be a moral guide; it merely shows as self-serving psychology all moral guides. Science doesn't set itself up as a guideline for living your life; it merely removes all legitimate claim any such guideline might have.

So now we've discovered the truth, that ALL religion is wrong and destructive, and we've made great breakthroughs in communicating the truth to others, that lack of religion does not mean lack of morals, that religion is most often used to excuse immorality and we'd be better off without it, and its claim to supernatural authenticity for its incomprehensible and contemptible morality.

But where do we go from here? If religion were to disappear, how would that work? No fair assuming all the nutbags would disappear, or that not having ancient myths would deter them from inventing new ones. If we're being honest, we must presume the amount of what we'll call "true immorality" will be unchanged, though the false facts people use to explain them will have new referents.

This idea of 'true immorality' is important, I think, because too often around here and other New Atheist spaces it seems to be assumed that we can conveniently and correctly equate it to 'anti-social behavior' and leave it at that. All cases that don't easily support that position are studiously ignored and handwaved, to make it simple to assume that a generalized atheist ethic would decrease rather than increase the difficulties and dangers of living in an open society. Religionists, obviously, are far more pessimistic. But the arguments we use are against their beliefs, not their pessimism. The pessimism itself is answered only with derision. Which unfortunately doesn't bode well for the common atheist position: blind optimism is no substitute for facts.

I present this long rant because I was recently thinking about how the Atheist is caught in a bind between the Religionists and the Nihilists. As much as we abhor the fact, we have no adequate response when the Religionists claim there is a natural affinity between ourselves and the Nihilists. We believe there is a closer affinity between Nihilists and Religionists. Only the Nihilist knows the truth, which is that neither of us have any argument against him, but that the Religionist, of the two of us, is the only one willing to admit that Blind Faith works well enough.

Of course, I think we can answer the Nihilist better than the Religionist can, but that isn't the issue; the issue is whether the Religionist thinks I can. How am I to convince him?

I think this all played out very directly in the preceding comments about "the liberals". FWIW, it isn't "liberal ideas of crime and punishment" that accounted for a loony being free to wreak havok; it was because of conservative ideas about Crime and Punishment. If the liberals had been in charge the last forty years, putting him in jail wouldn't have been the only alternative to making sure he didn't have a girl tied up in his shed, if every social health program weren't greeted with lies about excessive taxation. We'd have been able to figure out he had a dangerous psychological pathology when he was convicted, if the conservatives wouldn't have screamed about 'thought control and Stalinism' whenever rehabilitative methods were proposed. And don't forget it was Ronald Fricken Reagan who released all the crazies from the state hospitals, not "the liberals".

But the guy's argument wasn't completely baseless. What reason do we have to believe an Atheist society would not be a Nihilistic society, other than warm and fuzzy assumptions incorporating the naturalistic philosophy with some handy fables based on pseudo-prehistoric game theory?

Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 8:07 PM

tmax PA #198 wrote:

But where do we go from here? If religion were to disappear, how would that work? No fair assuming all the nutbags would disappear, or that not having ancient myths would deter them from inventing new ones. If we're being honest, we must presume the amount of what we'll call "true immorality" will be unchanged, though the false facts people use to explain them will have new referents.

If people become more reasonable, will they always be reasonable? No. But I think there's a better chance for improvement. Or, perhaps, continued improvement.

I don't think I agree that, in a secularized, humanistic culture, the amount of "true immorality" would be unchanged. Things have improved in the last 500 years or so -- human rights wasn't much of a concept in the Middle Ages. Psychopaths may (or may not) be an unchanging percentage, but most 'evil' is done by ordinary people. Ordinary people today are less likely to condone slavery, wife abuse, and bear-bating.

Atheism itself isn't a goal, it's the result of a method. If you look at the evolution of science, you see that it evolved along an ethic. Be honest. Doubt yourself. And have respect for the critical opinions of others.

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 28, 2009 10:05 PM

TmaxPA:

I didn’t understand all that business about nihilists, etc., but ...

Science doesn't claim to be a moral guide; it merely shows as self-serving psychology all moral guides. Science doesn't set itself up as a guideline for living your life; it merely removes all legitimate claim any such guideline might have.

Compassion is a natural attribute of the human species. It has NOTHING to do with religion – it doesn't come from religion, nor is it enhanced by having religion.

We know about compassion as a natural attribute of humans specifically because of science, and specifically because science doesn’t accept that goodness comes from a supernatural superbeing.

The question asked by science is: If goodness doesn’t come from some god, yet exists, what is the natural source of it?

Knowing something about what kinship and compassion is and where it comes from doesn’t make it disappear, doesn’t make it suddenly less effective or moving. It makes it MORE effective and moving.

If we understand that we have the capacity to love each other and to be tolerant of each other, and we learn that it’s one of our most powerful species characteristics, that really makes it especially wonderful, don’t you think? Discovering that we have so much compassion – NATURALLY – that we can love each other, can love companion animals, can even love ideas ... that’s damned special.

Once we get gods out of the discussion, THEN we start to learn some really interesting things about ourselves. To an atheist like me, the fact that no gods are required in order to be good really kind of becomes a side issue. It’s a persistent pest that can be, should be, diminished in its ability to distract or harm us.

If religion were to disappear, how would that work?

First of all, religion won’t just “disappear,” it will have to be gradually rendered powerless by being revealed as the less effective software for running the human mind. As religion becomes ever less able to control people and make them irrational – and assuming we continue to actively work toward teaching every new generation of young people how to replace superstition with reason and realism – we’ll have more and more people thinking rationally.

Note that society as a whole today is actually less religious in every sense than it was, say, a couple of thousand years ago. And yet today there are more of us living in close contact, relatively peaceably, than ever before. We Anglos and Hispanics and Orientals and Blacks and middle Easterners and Tunisians and Tierra del Fuegans can more easily live together than in any highly religious era of the past.

Get it? In all those times when we were more religious, we were less accepting of others. At any point in our formerly hyper-goddy history, if you really believed that the only way to live was the way YOUR god said to live, you absolutely could not accept anyone who didn’t believe in that god. We were more apt to reject those other people, to expel them, to persecute them, or to get into a genocidal war with them (or almost as bad, to send missionaries to murder their culture) ... because they didn’t worship the right god.

Today we’re more peaceful and open because we have the freedom to not have religion, or at least to have less controlling forms of it.

What we call fundamentalists today, the freaky-crazy religious types who are thankfully in the minority, used to be the people in control of society. EVERY church that ever held absolute power over its society was a fundamentalist church. The Catholics were fundamentalists. The Lutherans broke away and THEY were fundamentalists. The Baptists were fundamentalists. The Mormons were fundamentalists. And all of them, when they were the majority in a society, were every bit as nutty and scary as fundie Christians and fundie Muslims are today.

You think WE have child molesters? Crank back the clock a few hundred years and zoom in on the Catholic Church, or Islam, and I guarantee you’d find a level of nastiness and abuse that would take your breath away. (I’ll bet being molested by priests was so common that people thought it was RIGHT.) Crank it back 100 years and zoom in on Mormonism, and you’d find pre-teens being married off to lecherous old men.

We KNOW this stuff happened – hell, Mohammad himself, the founder of Islam, had a 9-year-old for a bride ... whom he proposed to in front of her parents when she was 6.

We look back on that today and think “Oh, that was just their culture.” But no it wasn’t. That was the brutal rape of a little girl by a disgusting old man. It’s just that he lived in a culture where rich old men could get away with destroying the innocence of little girls because they were protected by the ugly power of religion.

Why are things better for 9-year-old girls today? Why is it a crime, and recognized as a particularly nasty one, for this guy to have kidnapped and raped this 11-year-old girl?

Because fundamentalist religionists don’t run things. Because religion itself is weaker. Which means: Because society is more secular.

Look at the most secular societies today and you'll be looking at some of the most peaceful, open and cooperative – what we’d call “moral.”

Look at those societies today that are most fundamentally religious and you’ll be looking at the most repressed, sick and violent.

This correlation is not just some accident.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 28, 2009 10:15 PM

tmaxPA said:

What reason do we have to believe an Atheist society would not be a Nihilistic society, other than warm and fuzzy assumptions incorporating the naturalistic philosophy with some handy fables based on pseudo-prehistoric game theory?

A couple of observations....
First, some religious people adopt the exact same nihilistic attitude that others allege atheism causes. They say this world sucks...everything we do can be forgiven...the next world will be better, etc. It's not hard to see how this can lead to a nihilistic attitude, and these principles are in fact advocated by some religious beliefs. Just look at the "Rapture Ready" as an example.

Second, atheism makes no such argument so at the least it doesn't actively encourage nihilism, unlike some religious beliefs.

Considering that religious beliefs tend to be more deeply held in societies that have widespread poverty, corruption, and inequality, perhaps religious beliefs are in part a non-constructive reaction to nihilistic trends in a given culture or individual? Since religion is often used to justify such destructive policies it can be argued that atheism would, by removing a justification for such practices, help to lessen nihilism. Additionally without someone to pray to for a solution, some people might be more motivated to make an activist position for bettering their lives.

Ultimately, I would say that the is no reason to expect an atheistic society to be more nihilistic, because most people (in general) aren't that nihilistic deep down inside regardless of their beliefs or lack there of. Additionally, it can be argued that there is no evidence showing an increase in nihilism as religious beliefs decline in country after country around the world. If atheism encouraged nihilism, there should be detectable trends supporting such a conclusion from many countries around the world.

Posted by: Margaret | August 28, 2009 10:24 PM

becca-

for some really depressing reading about crimes where religion *was* a factor, I recommend "Under the Banner of Heaven"

When I heard the story on the news, I thought it sounded like it was taken right out of that book.

Posted by: John Morales | August 28, 2009 10:32 PM

RC,

I don't think using examples of the mentally ill who embrace a religous belief (and I will point out that this was his own religion, not an established one) is any worthwhile evidence against religion.

But it is evidence that religion doesn't ameliorate mental illness, and that it doesn't make immoral people act morally.

Posted by: WMDKitty | August 28, 2009 11:23 PM

I discussed this case with Mom over dinner, and she was just as horrified as I am.

After reading all this, I need a shower, and then I need to go sob into my pillow for a while.

Posted by: raven | August 29, 2009 12:02 AM

Rob evading the issue or lying:

---This is probably a lie along the lines of "Hitler was an atheist."---
Why? because it provides a counterexample that you'd prefer not to agree with?

wikipedia:

After his parents' divorce, McVeigh lived with his father; his sisters moved to Florida with their mother. He and his father were Roman Catholics who often attended daily Mass. In a recorded interview with Time magazine[13] McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic.[14] McVeigh at one time said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."[15]

Doesn't sound like an atheist. For most of his life he seems to have had some sort of god belief. Atheists don't believe science is a religion. Most think science is...science. It is also a matter of public record that he was avenging a fundie xian cult for a runin with the feds.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 1:49 AM

@ Rob:

You seem to be very confused about what atheism actually is.

All it means is a lack of belief in a god(s), that's it.... nothing more. It makes no claim on being an ethical system. That's what ethics (and ethicists) are for.

Claiming that atheism encourages immorality behavior is like saying that not thinking the moon is made of cheese, encourages immoral behavior just because some people have wrapped an ethos around the belief that the moon is made of cheese. It's attempting to commit the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

Stalin didn't think that the moon was made of cheese either, does that mean we should encourage people to think that it is made of cheese?

Posted by: Alex | August 29, 2009 4:00 AM

For me, the funny part is that, technically, he's still going to heaven.

Posted by: Rob | August 29, 2009 6:25 AM

---You've made the mistake of confusing atheism with a belief system, when properly considered, atheism is the absence of belief---

I should have described atheism as part of a belief system, which is more accurate than what I wrote (although I think to say there's no positive claim element to atheism is wrong (eg the problem of evil is an example of an argument that makes a positive rather than negative defence for atheism).

---Because fundie xians always lie a lot. It is very, very consistent. You were asked for a source of a dubious, self serving, and out of character quote. You didn't give one. Most likely because you are lying.---

You come across as being as somewhat of an overly aggressive self-righteous bore, just as much so as the fundie trolls that pop up on the internet do. You also appear unable to read, since I later cited a 2ndary source which in turn referenced a primary source that you're free to go and check for yourself if it really winds you up that much. Furthermore, I was also careful to use the word 'apparently' since I'm aware Wiki can be unreliable - despite this it is generally a handy tool for casual debates such as this, and I've seen it used fairly frequently by bloggers that people here consider credible (eg ERV's blog), so I didn't see it would be a problem.

Amazingly you even quote the very same wikipedia article and include the exact quote I referenced (right at the end of the paragraph), yet focus on highlighting the parts I didn't make any reference to! So perhaps before you accuse people of lying or being fundies you might want to check what it was they actually said - after all I'm fairly sure you'd be getting your panties in a wad if it was a creationist doing the same thing with views you hold.

As also pointed out I'm not religious (I am in fact an atheist if you really need to know) - however I don't feel this fact obligates me to agree with every point made by any fellow atheist as you apparently feel it does. As I later went on to point out even if the example I gave turned out to be wrong, can anyone seriously argue for the more general claim that there has never been an example of someone justifying questionable behaviour with reference to atheism (especially given that atheism is compatible with moral relativism and nihilism)?

---Timothy McVeigh killed nearly 200 people to avenge the Branch Davidians. A toxic fundie cult. Not exactly what one would expect for an atheist.---

Firstly I didn't say McVeigh claimed to be an atheist - try reading what's actually there rather than what you'd like to be there. The quote was 'science is my religion', which has no mention of atheism (and is included in what you actually quoted!). Presumably you feel it's inconceivable that Timothy Mcveigh held a variety of different views and people are capable of holding different views at different times, or that they can hold mutliple incompatible views at the same time?

---Fundies make up quotes a lot. On Wikipedia for a while they had Eric Rudolph the xian terrorist serial killer and bomber as an atheist too. He's a Catholic.---

While fundies do indeed make up quotes, Wiki at least attempts to correct dubious claims as far as is reasonably possible - furthermore, despite your whining that I didn't give a source, I did when someone else asked for it which as I say there is nothing stopping you checking. Even if I was wrong, I think my general point was reasonable enough (ie that in this instance, 'religion as a refuge for the criminally insane' is a non-sequitur, much as any claim that any criminally insane person making strong reference to beliefs that you agree with would not show that any of those beliefs were 'a refuge for the criminally insane'. If you can't grasp this basic point, then there's not much else I can say that will make it clearer for you.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 7:12 AM

What reason do we have to believe an Atheist society would not be a Nihilistic society, other than warm and fuzzy assumptions incorporating the naturalistic philosophy with some handy fables based on pseudo-prehistoric game theory?- tmaxPA

You mean apart from the enormous numbers of atheists living non-nihilistic, productive and useful lives?
And the fact that the most atheistic among rich societies also include the most peacful, equal and tolerant (Scandinavia); while the most religious (the USA) has a higher homicide rate and imprisons a far larger proportion of its citizens than any other? Oh, and the fact that the general decline in religion has coincided with an increase in respect for individual freedom, equality between races and sexes, and opposition to war? No, really, there's no reason at all, is there?

BTW, the game theory you sneer at is of enormous importance: it demonstrates how it is possible for cooperation and altruism beyond close kin to evolve and persist, contrary to the frequent claims of the religious that only a "gift from God" can explain this.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 7:36 AM

Right, and some seriously deluded people used to think they were Napoleon - Tulse

Actually, I wonder if this is true.

Psychotic individuals are not made psychotic by whatever false belief system they espouse -- instead, their illness makes them susceptible to false beliefs, and they end up adopting whatever comes along (e.g., aliens are beaming thoughts into my head, the Queen of England and Masons are controlling the world governments, the CIA is stalking me with mind-control lasers). - Tulse

Well, you're a lot more certain about the mechanisms of psychosis than I think most psychopathologists are. This guy appears to have had delusions, specifically, of his own special, exalted status. True, these could have taken a non-religious form, but it's by no means obvious that they would have reached the level they did without the background of societal respect for religion - particularly as this occurs in the USA, where it is quite respectable to start your own church and declare you have a special mission from God.

Posted by: Susan | August 29, 2009 10:42 AM

@ Laurel

I guess what I'm wondering is, outside the constant reinforcement of male-dominated societies provided by three powerful religions that say "men rule, women are chattel," would this stuff have even happened?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 29, 2009 11:44 AM

So at least, if you trust my testimony, don't generalize.

Unfortunately anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all, you know.
And noone blames religion for his illness, but isnt it strange that his religion didnt prevent him from committing these horrific acts? Isnt that what's meant to happen when you're religious, that morality infusion you are allegedly getting by being religious?

Posted by: clausentum | August 29, 2009 2:27 PM

Some of you complain about liberal-bashing, as if that were in some way reprehensible, but here and now on this very blog we have a classic demonstration of the schizophrenic nature of the liberal mindset: in this thread the guys are still coming in talking about the "mental illness" and treating or even curing Garrido, and the evil of locking him up for a very long time, and right on another active thread
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/gay_conversion_works_if_you_ig.php
we are lectured about the futility of gay conversion...I'm sorry to bring gays in the same context as this criminal, but the fact is, that we cannot change what someone is. It's a gloomy point-of-view, I accept, but conservatism is based in realism, which has prevented many evils.

Posted by: Charles | August 29, 2009 3:10 PM

Rorschach

It's ok it is not evidence, is just a testimony for my personal point.

I hope he was trying to found cure in religion, but what he did have nothing to do with Christian preaching... it is really weird how he get to that conclusion be God will... he have sure ignored all christian adverts..

In the most deep way, i believe he only trusted in himself, no matter what Buda, or Allah, or Napoleon have to say... God talking to him was only himself...

One difference between me and him is that i don't heard God, i was hearing dead people... and i have to say it was religion responsibility at the beginning because i guessed it was a gift, but in the bible there is no such gift...

He was insane, maybe i have problems, but i was not insane to the last moment, i try to keep rational from the beginning to the end.. it is very complex... also, i fell nostalgic because the illness was so terrible and shameful i try to forget everything and this guy made me remember....

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 29, 2009 3:24 PM

clausentum -

but conservatism is based in realism, which has prevented many evils.

Woooohoohoohoooo.... thanks for that clausentum... I laughed for 10 straight minutes... my sides still hurt. I needed a good chuckle today.

Posted by: mas528 | August 29, 2009 5:13 PM

Clausentum,

What evil has conservatism ever prevented or even mitigated?

I can enumerate some of the evils it allowed to continue (and still allow). Slavery, racism, religious prejudice, witch hunts, the KKK, the John Birch Society, the coninuation of the USSR long after it had failed, the Great Depression, the current depression, sexual prejudice, isolationism, the delays in the USA entering WW 1 and 2, the holocaust(not the USA but still an example of conservatism) , the arms race, the interrment of the japanese, the calls for interrment of muslims after 9/11, religious exemptions for child murder, the support of Saddam in Afganistan just because he was fighting the USSR, the war in Iraq, the patriot act (a more ironic name could not be found). In every one of those cases, it took (or will take) liberals to look beyond the self-satisfied lack of thought exhibited by the conservative faction.

In fact, try to find any time in the history of the USA that the conservatives made correct decisions.

Some of you might recall, at the birth of this fading republic, conservatives were called Tories.

Posted by: mas528 | August 29, 2009 5:49 PM

Rob @ 108:

many religions explicitly forbid practices such as the ones detailed in the article in the first place, a point which you appear to have ignored.

I'm still trying to think of a religion that explicitly prohibits kidnapping and rape.

The Torah and Koran both explicitly endorse them. The prophet daniel kept his women secreted away.

The gospels implicitly endorse it since Jesus spoke (as a matter-of-fact)about the relationship between master and slave.

The notions of "works do not matter", "saved by accepting christ.", and "jesus died for my sins" are the contributing factors.

As the evangelicals are fond of placing on their bumper stickers, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven".

Posted by: ursulamajor | August 29, 2009 9:17 PM

So, since this guy has turned to "God", he will go to heaven and its' rewards, but if those 3 girls, whose lives he made hell on earth decide to turn away from "God" because of the damage they have experienced, they go to hell.

I just vomited a bit. It burns, it burns....

Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | August 29, 2009 11:47 PM

Hank Fox wrote

religion won’t just “disappear,” it will have to be gradually rendered powerless by being revealed as the less effective software for running the human mind. As religion becomes ever less able to control people and make them irrational – and assuming we continue to actively work toward teaching every new generation of young people how to replace superstition with reason and realism – we’ll have more and more people thinking rationally.

Rob,

I didn't say McVeigh claimed to be an atheist - try reading what's actually there rather than what you'd like to be there. The quote was 'science is my religion', which has no mention of atheism (and is included in what you actually quoted!),

Posted by: Bob Evans-aka Metsguy | August 30, 2009 2:38 AM

PZ said: "I am not impressed. I presume that what he thinks makes this a happy tale is that he was an enthusiastic god-walloper who was caught while handing out religious tracts, but you can read his blog and see that he was just nuts."

Do you actually draw a moral equivalency, Professor Myers, between this guys twisted, schizophrenic "perspective," and the thinking of adherents of mainstream Christianity? Are you suggesting that individual adherents to mainstream Christianity are not in agreement with the apparency that, Garrido was, and is, indeed, "nuts?" Please explain.

Posted by: DCW | August 30, 2009 9:43 AM

You guys are so focused on the religous aspect of the kook that you are missing the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

The case is manifestly a failure of the government and liberal ideology. Early release from prison-(liberals tend to love that). Also ongoing monitoring and multiple visits by representatives of the government failed to detect anything and ignored red flags and warnings.

And I am laughing my ass off that the majority here simply cannot wait to turn our healthcare over to the same governmental incompetence that fucked this case up.

Posted by: Rob | August 30, 2009 1:52 PM

you are hereby convicted of quotemining, and sentenced to five thousand lashes with a wet noodle.

Hmmm - I attribute a claim to McVeigh and someone asks for a source. I provide one, which then someone attempts to claim the source refutes my claim that McVeigh was an atheist, I point out that was never actually the claim I made in the first place - especially since I had actually also pointed out that McVeigh held various religious beliefs during his life. Despite the fact what I actually claimed of McVeigh was clearly present in the quote, I now get accused of quote-mining despite all the views I attributed to McVeigh being accounted for in the source (whether you trust Wiki as a source or you can be bothered to check the primary source it references is your call, but clearly I didn't misrepresent what was on its page on McVeigh). On the other hand, several people have been quite happy to misrepresent my comments on the matter - make of that what you will.

The only thing all of us have in common is a lack of belief in deities.

Hence why I revised my point to state that atheism was part of a belief system - as pointed out you could have Objectivist atheists, Platonist atheists, moral relativist atheists etc etc. Lots of views can be compatible with atheism was what I was meaning - which is basically the same as what you've said. Presumably everyone on here who is an atheist holds a set of beliefs, of which atheism is one part? I fail to see how they could not have a belief system of which atheism was a part if they claimed to be an atheist.

Absence of belief is not belief.

But you don't have an asbence of belief - you have a positive belief ie that god/s doesn't/do not exist. I don't really understand why you think this is a bad thing. If I had no opinion on the existence of unicorns, or if I was ignorant of the idea of unicorns I would have an absence of belief. If I state 'unicorns don't exist' that is a belief is it not? Presumably for me to consider something to be true, I have to believe that is the case, do I not?

I also believe god does not exist. As far as I have been able to work out, that belief is true, just like the belief 'unicorns do not exist' constitutes a belief that is also true. Maybe you have heard of 'justified true belief' as one defintion of knowledge in the study of epistemology in philosophy? It's not obvious how you could consider a claim to be true without holding a belief on the matter in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

"Justified true belief is one definition of knowledge that states for someone to have knowledge of something, it must be true, it must be believed to be true, and the belief must be justified."

The old "you atheists are believers too, you believe in the absence of Gawd" wheeze. No matter how many times this idea is refuted, all too many goddists like to trot it out.

Atheism is a belief - beliefs can be true, so I don't see the point of the objection here. You seem to be under the impression because the word belief is often associated with religion, in which largely arbitrary or false beliefs are held, all belief is an inherently bad thing - religious beliefs are indeed beliefs, just that many of them happen to be false beliefs. So I don't see the need for the fuss over the use of the word belief. Furthermore, you might not like it, but everyone else does in fact hold many assumptions that we cannot prove true or false (eg that we're not brains in a vat etc) - obviously we hold them because it's impractical not to. Anyone who says they make zero assumptions in their overall belief system is talking nonsense.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 31, 2009 4:01 AM

Rob @ 241,

the question of whether there is a god doesnt concern me.
There obviously isnt, which should be obvious to anyone who isnt insane and ever watches a newscast on this planet.
It is a certainty to me just like it is a certainty that if I drop my beer bottle, it will fall to the ground and shatter.
Utter absence of belief, in both cases.None needed.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 31, 2009 8:35 AM

Certainly in Europe, it was the liberals for whom no excuse was too specious for going easy on the USSR. - Clausentum

Just another conservative lie.

Posted by: SteveL | September 13, 2009 4:46 AM

I guess this thread is pretty much dead, but anyway here's a nice take on Garrido and religion.

Garrido's twisted path led often to god

Molesters commonly turn to religion to rationalize their behavior, said Ken Lanning, a former FBI profiler who specializes in kidnapping and child abuse cases.