Cults are all about control, and small children must be very hard to control.
The leader of a religious cult was "outraged" when a 1-year-old boy did not say "Amen" before a meal and ordered her followers to deprive him of food and water until he died, a Baltimore prosecutor told jurors Monday.
Another horrifying detail: the mother of the boy went along with the punishment and watched him waste away…all because she wanted to be accepted as a member of the cult.
- Log in to post comments
They must have thought he was possessed by the devil or something. Similar to Nigerian witch hunts. Shows we still have a long way to go as a species.
Tragic story.
I remember this story. They actually sat and prayed over the corpse in the hopes of the dead child being revived.
I don't think there are words to describe the vile nature of these evil people. It's just further proof that religion can so easily damage the minds of once rational people. At what point does common sense and humanity get thrown out to where starving a child or denying a dying child medicine or beating them to death makes sense?
I've known one-year-olds who couldn't yet say anything, at least not coherently. At least a chunk of this woman's DNA has disappeared. Let's hope she, and everyone else involved, spends forever in prison.
Another fine example of religious moderates and why superstition should not be ignored.
dog bites man
Disgusting act there. Just vile and so wrong... but they believed it was right. I'm astounded by how horrid this is.
I wonder will people pay attention to this or the RDF shidazzle?
These people expected a one year old boys to say "Amen"? How many one year old boys can say anything?
Crazies.
Murderous crazies.
And notice how this "cult" is an offshoot of christianity. Why won't they call it a religion? They acted like a religion, they took in a desperate woman (she was a single mother) and got her to put the "cult's" interest above her own.
Agree completely with #2. I posted this on Facebook this morning, all the while feeling an overwhelming revulsion for the people involved. Religion is truly, truly brain-rot, and the mother of that unfortunate child was brainwashed beyond belief. AP reported how the mother - even after entering a guilty plea - put in a condition that the plea would be withdrawn if the child were to be "resurrected" (!!) as a result of her prayers. Such pathetic delusions, such as tragedy.
It is an assumption that people are rational
"I don't think there are words to describe the vile nature of these evil people. It's just further proof that religion can so easily damage the minds of once rational people. "
Humanity demonstrates regularly how few are rational
What the hell!? So they thought enough of the consequences to stuff the body in a suitcase but while the child was starving no one thought... um... maybe this is a bad idea.
Crazy is too kind a word for these people.
What threw me off was the deal that the plea would be vacated if the child came back to life. Do they really believe that delusion is even possible? Ok, I guess they do, but as others have said here, at what point does rationality, humanity, and common sense get tossed aside to allow a child to die in such a slow and painful way? And to just sit there and watch a child waste away when they know all they need to do is to feed the child. That was all that was needed: just feed the kid. It's stuff like this that truly makes me despair for the human race and makes me so disgusted with religion followers. Sad for me I live in an area where a few "snake charmers" like that make their abode. :(
I've never been one for "an eye for an eye", but damn it if this doesn't make me want to re-think that...
This bit stunned me with its absurdity, even in the midst of the larger insanity:
[i]Ramkissoon pleaded guilty last year to child abuse resulting in death and plans to testify against Antoinette, Williams and Cobbs. At her insistence, the plea deal included an extraordinary provision: [b]If Javon comes back to life, the plea will be vacated.[/b][/i]
As shockingly evil as this incident is, this woman is actually [b]more[/b] responsible for her position than a lot of religious lunatics--she's willing to actually put her faith to the test. I say we give the Catholic Church an offer--they agree to pay off every last claimant of priestly abuse, divying up the entire wealth of the Church between the victims. In exchange, the victims have to agree to give it all back if Jesus returns and says the Church actually needs the money.
I may be remembering this incorrectly but I think i saw something on this back when it happened. I'm pretty sure beyond even the regular religion induced mental issues, that the mother wasn't playing with a full deck. I'm not excusing her actions in anyway but there may be some explanation to why she went along with it and why she was some convinced that the child could come back to life.
My jaw literally dropped. I see this kind of shit all the time, but some part of me just can't believe it. How can people do this kind of shit? And how can people defend religion when it so often leads to... this.
As if I wasn't feeling sick at my stomach already. :/
I'm with #8!! Why is it that it's a religion when everything seems to be running smoothly, but when people start dying or children start having children where half the DNA is from the cult leader that it's actually labeled a "cult?"
The Catholic Church RAPES little boys! Why don't we label this a cult as well? They're all cults to me. All equally deserving of the same amount of revulsion, the maximum.
So much for the faith business. They obviously knew they were wrong and committed a crime.
Highlighting the banality of evil. You can't acquire power without followers, so you say whatthefuckever to get them. Has zero to do with any actual belief.
So they've been cultivating new capacities of mind and heart in Baltimore, eh?
... what we call "Amen" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence ...
[/K. Armstrong]
I know one who hasn't quite started saying Mama yet (and obviously doesn't say anything else either).
Well, I've been beaten to the natural-selection joke, so I have nothing more to say. Except for asking where the point is at which we should start to punish stupidity.
While the mother's actions were wrong and indefensible, it's also very clear that she wasn't in a right state of mind. She'd been emotionally abused by the cult into a brainwashed state of dependence to the point where she'd follow "Queen Antoinette"'s orders, even against her own better judgement and (real) desire to save her son.
It's good to see that the mother is getting psychological treatment, while the real villains are the ones facing prison terms.
Ditto #8 and #17 - I suspect the only reason they've been referred to as a 'cult' is because Christians have exterted pressure to ensure they're able to play the 'Oh, that's not what Christianity is' card in an attempt to avoid criticism.
Sorry, that shit just doesn't fly here. They were Christians; this is a death laid squarely at the feet of Christianity.
Really, it's not up to us to show they're Christians, it's up to the 'true' Christians who insist their interpretation is valid to show how this other interpretation isn't - in such a way that the people who committed this evil act agree not to call themselves Christians anymore. Then they can call it a 'cult'.
I've been saying this for many years now, and I'm sick and tired of it:
How many more?
It could be worse: I could be older and thus been saying the same thing for decades rather than years.
When will a civilized western state have the courage to tell all citizens of all ages clearly and repeatedly: "This is superstitious nonsense, drop it. No, it does not matter what your holy book says about it or how old it is. It's wrong, period."
It should be said until everyone gets it. In the meantime, look at ideologically hampered parents more intensely and take appropriate measures early. If the parents believe that a) saying magic words is important and b) not following the rules of proper magic rituals is punishable, then their children go. It's as simple as that.
*shakes head*
I don't think I was saying anything at the age of one either.
And yet its we atheists who are responsible for the snow storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, and general malaise besetting our nation.
Funny, that.
According to most Christian theology, the great crime -- the greatest crime -- is trying to follow your own ways, and failing to acknowledge and follow God. All suffering has its roots in rebellion, and our attachment to the things of this world.
Using that as the template, a mother who feels anguish when her child is in pain, is a mother who is being selfish and self-seeking. She is not accepting. She is not focused on God.
This mother may have seen her child's death as a test of her own ability to trust God, and handle whatever He gives her. Like an abusive spouse, God punishes all those who are uppity -- mother, father, and child. There's a reason behind it, so it's okay.
Utterly abhorrent, but far from unpredictable. For how long should society be expected to pay lip service to an idea in which this may be venerated by some as the moral thing to do? And they've the gall to suggest that secularism has direct ties to either amorality or immorality as opposed to what we are all to accept as the infallible virtuousness of the theistic and pious? What rubbish.
Sad to say a religion starving a baby to death is nothing new. I remember a case in my own back yard in Massachusetts where a woman in the group had a "vision" in which another woman's baby must be refused solid food because God told her so. The man in charge of this religion ordered that the baby be denied solid food. The baby wasn't even a year old. He starved to death and it was a horrid death. He screamed and cried in pain and from starvation until he was too weak to continue. It was a long, drawn-out, painful, horrendous death, and no one in that religion did a thing to stop it, even after hearing those horrid and painful cries. The case is Massachusetts v. Robidoux and here's a link about the case if you can stomach reading it.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/attleboro/attleboro92.html
I also second #8's comment that when it's a horrendous case like this, why call it a cult? It's a religion. Yup, the Catholic church whitewashed the raping of boys and it's not a cult. Mainstream Christianity can't be allowed to get away with calling groups like these cults because that minimizes the damage religion does, especially to the young
If Jesus did come back, and saw the things being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
For me, the worst thing about this is that the mother actually thought that the starvation she knew the child was experiencing was far better than the Hell she believed she might go to for disobeying. She was so afraid of a belief that she was willing to knowingly commit a wrong act.
But since when have humans been eminently reasonable and rational beings? As someone else has already said, as bad as this is to read about, it's still just another case of man bites dog. Blech.
Erm, I meant "dog bites man", but men biting dogs isn't so uncommon in my life at any rate. Emergency medicine - what a thrill!
A few years ago, Baltimore City prosecutors made a deal with a woman where by she pled guilty to murdering her kid. However, if the child was resurrected, she would be released. The kid actually had to come back to life. She could not claim that a bird or butterfly was really him.
No word in the plea agreement about him returning a zombie.
There was a discussion on this blog of this case when it first came to light. "Brainwashed" by god into killing her child
I weep for humani-- wait, no. No. Thi is just another example of how disgusting and depraved humanity truly is. I say let the "mother" and the cult leaders starve to death, just as they tarved the child. Let them experience the same slow, agonizing death. I doubt it will nstill any compassion in them, but it'll damn sure satisfy my desire for revenge.
Who's with me?
Slightly O.T. Is there something in the water? Arianna Huffington over at the Huffington Post, is now featuring a "religion" section. First alternative (=non) medicine, now she's championing the woo woo?
Must either be advancing Alzheimer's, or a test came back positive and she's hedging her bets.
Perhaps she's just fishing for teh conservative-niks?
Oh. My. God.
That's absolutely nuts.
I had to think about my formal response for a second... but here it goes.
If religion is supposed to be a bulletproof system of beliefs that lead to moral behavior, why does this happen? Well, me, it happens because that's not what any religion really is. Oh, they may try to be, but what they are are massive clubs ran by power-mad lunatics who care about nothing but controlling people's souls. That's all it is.
Ok, this is horrifying, but a thought occurs...
Is pointing to the excesses of cults and small religious minorities, with the unstated implication that "this is why rational scepticism is better than faith" really any different to the people who say "well Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists"?
I think it would be more productive to focus on the every day evils of religion, in the form that large numbers of normal people practice. To do otherwise is bad statistics, like measuring only the highest temperature in summer and saying this is evidence of climate change.
I was about to give my typical response to this sort of horrific act but overheard at that moment on NBC news a clip about the young woman who had worked sooooo hard to make the Olympics. Her mother had gone to Vancouver to watch her daughter skate but died suddenly of an apparent heart attack. The young woman skated to the best score of her as-yet brief career; only at the end did the tears come.
This is not an attempt to hijack this thread, but I'm wonderfully heartened to be reminded of the glorious greatness of the human condition coming at the most unsuspected moments. The bulk of us are good. Well, most of us are OK. We cannot let ourselves become lesser beings because of a vile and slimy few.
I should have Googled before posting.
Joanne Rochette placed third, only 1½ ponts behind second and nearly 8 full points ahead of fourth.
@ jm_birkett#20113
No, it isn't the same. Atheist's don't claim that atheism makes a person moral. Religions, however, do make that claim. We point things like this out as proof that religion does no such thing.
Which says a lot about humans, and their need for religion. It is not so much about what the religion says (clearly, in this case, the philosophy of the religion is indefensibly cruel), but simply a matter of being accepted by a group of people. Following those crazy rules shows you are part of the group, even to the point that you will sacrifice your disbelief and critical analysis.
I have a friend who recently converted to Judaism. An intelligent man, with two degrees, a good career, and previously, a sound sceptiscm of organised religion. For him, as far as I can tell, it is not about what Judaism teaches per se, but that he feels part of a community by following its teaching, however crazy they are.
That is what scares me about religion. It uses a fundamental part of human psychology, and twists and manipulates it.
Wasn't this already covered here?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/privileging_belief.php
"1 Mind Ministries"
Yes, one very disturbed mind. Clearly.
I'm sorry PZ, I'm not sure I can stomach any more of these kind of stories. I feel unwell for days afterwards and sharply angry every time I think about it.
I have a 1 year-old little girl at home. I think I'm going to call and check on her...
No, I think incidents like this are fodder for the argument that religion should not be above criticism. In fact, many of the abuses in the Pol Pot and Stalin had the same exact problem -- they were above criticism. I'm not interested in suppressing religion, but I am very interested in ridding us of the taboo of publicly criticizing it. Religious ideas, like all other ideas, should live and die based on their merit, not because it's "rude" to talk about them.
Better might be to call all religions 'cults.' Christianity began roughly 2000 y.b.p., Islam some 600 years later, Mormonism in the 19th century and Scientology in the 20th century. Differences between them (all the theology is nuts) are:
1) The number of adherents (we can fill in the 'gaps' with other religions and numbers of adherents).
2) Documentation concerning their origins. There are probably people still living who heard L.Ron Hubbard, one evening in a bar back in the 1950's, make a bet that he could found his own religion. The real world circumstances concerning the founding of Mormonism are still well documented independent of the group, not so much for Islam or Christianity.
Its a slippery slope and they're all cults. Some cults with huge followings just dislike truth in advertising (accurate labels).
Which is a pretty good answer to why so many athiests want to go to the conference next month.
Christianity:
Fucking Up Humanity for 2000 years and counting!
As a former cult member, this reminded me of a similar situation with a my best friend:
She was 15, and came down with ewing's sarcoma, a very treatable form of juvenile cancer. Not wanting to put faith in man, the fucking cult leader prayed over her and let her be. She died, and the son of a bitch had the balls to pray for her resurrection in the memorial service.
Q: What's the difference between a cult and a religion?
A: Marketing. That's it.
When I read this:
I not only recognized true evil, but realized what I wanted to do to that smirking piece of shit came close to dragging me to her level.
Prison justice will have to do...
I hear a lot of people saying that the mother was actually acting in the child's best interest within her own assumptions about reality.
Well the child's crime was not saying amen, dint the mother ever commit a crime of similar or higher magnitude ? Why din't she choose to starve herself as a punishment ?
Children are just their test dummies, this acting in best interest because she was brainwashed stuff is BS
This is clearly a blatant case of religious persecution of the most vile kind. Christianity has a rich tradition in the abuse of children, whether it consists of brainwashing them, beating them or raping them. And who are we to stand in the way of such time honoured tradition?
yep, these folks are christians -- it's the story of abraham and isaac, except this time god forgot to call it off.
#48
Quite possibly atheists enjoy the company of like-minded people as much as religous types.
However, there is a fundamental difference, which the subject of the original post refers to.
And given that atheists probably share a desire to live in a world were evil acts are not carried out in the name of religion, getting together to discuss how to acheive that seems like a logical move. I doubt anyone will be even lightly chastised before any group meal for not intoning some superstitous mumbo-jumbo.
Yeah, my 14-month-old doesn't say more than 'dada' and 'mama', but mostly 'yum-yum-yum' when it's mealtime. What was that saying about religious conviction plus stupidity equals? Items like these should be forwarded to Karen Armstrong until she crawls behind the sofa out of shame for her inanity.
It's probably secularists' fault for convincing the poor widdle believers that religious dogms are literal truths rather than metaphors for .. something.
This part remindeds me of the "Milgram Experiments".
Religion is all about obedience to authority versus doing what is ethical.
Similarly to # 57:
The effect of this quote
juxtaposed with this one
--Quote from the book jacket of Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith, by Francis S. Collins
leaves my head spinning.
Bloody religious nutters. If they had been followers of the deity The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the child didn't say rAmen then maybe they would have had a better lame excuse for depriving a child of food. But still this was a child and they had a duty of care to look after him.