He wanted to be a preacher. He was a good Christian. His wife was a true believer, too. Their baby, though, was a godless heathen who never read the bible.
So I'm sure it was perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the microwave and cook her.
And their excuse that Satan made him do it? Quite sensible, I'm sure.
Isn't faith a wonderful thing?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
My home state! In a region with some of the highest percentages of godless people in the country! And they have this awful law on the books.
Washington's law specifies that a person treated through faith healing "by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not…
Time for another stream-of-consciousness response to yet another slimy Christian.
Interesting blog
But I beg for just a few moments of your time. You are obviously an intelligent individual, considering you're a prof and all [Flattery alert: diverting warp power to shields. I can guess how this…
I'd never realized what a useful tool the Bible is in infallibly resolving difficult moral problems until I read this detailed dissection of a difficult situation on Answers in Genesis.
Here's the hypothetical situation: you know the whereabouts of a family of Jews hiding from the Nazis. A Nazi…
Some of you may know that a publisher contacted me last year about turning a piece of short fiction I'd written from an adult perspective into a young adult novel. There are several reasons I wanted to do this - the first is that in many ways, the young adult fiction market is much more vital than…
Even I draw the line here PZ. Faith in this case is a symptom, not a cause, of the mental illness.
KILL...
Chris, I'm not so sure. Interesting that BOTH of them appear to be mentally ill. That BOTH of them appear to buy into the realness of Satan.
Religion is the rationalization the insane use to excuse insanity after the fact.
Life would be better off without people hiding their heads in the sand.
WTF? 19-year-old husband? How old was she? That young, and they have kids already. Hm.
If you believe that Satan is a real being, out there creating problems for good people, how do you go about differentiating between his influence and plain old mental illness? If it's Satan, you just have to pray harder, rather than seeking professional help (or dragging your spouse in for help).
I think this man's wife demonstrates one of the dangers of such beliefs -- given the opportunity, it sounds like she'd place their child back into his care, with prayer as his only treatment.
This had nothing to do with Satan. Satan doesn't instruct people to microwave babies. Babies should be boiled or the meat gets rubbery.
pshaw
It's all about accountability. Now, if Satan would just fess up we could all go on about our business. In the meantime, I think the man in question should refrain from cooking with children nearby.
Note: I thought Satan was busy getting men to have sex with each other, and pushing the ACLU to protect the Enemies of the One True God, and fluoridating our water supply. But then again, what the hell do I know? I voted for Wotan.
+++
Mike's right.
I tried the BBQ, but the baby-fat burns to quick and you end up with just a charred mess.
OTOH, if you boil FIRST, to remove some of the excess fat, THEN BBQ, it works much better.
Dilettantes. Raw, squirming, and whole, stuffed into the maw, down the gullet, and plunk into the hydrochloric acid is how Satan does it. They should have realized the instant that the voices in their heads demanded that the sacrifice be cooked that they were dealing with a fake.
"Chris, I'm not so sure. Interesting that BOTH of them appear to be mentally ill. That BOTH of them appear to buy into the realness of Satan."
--Hank
It isn't surprising given that the mentally ill do gravitate to fundamentalist churches. They're looking for stability and rigidity, and the churches provide it. In this case, two loons seem to have found each other.
and:
"Religion is the rationalization the insane use to excuse insanity after the fact."
--PZ
And to say that religion caused them to nuke their kids is to miss the fact that there are seriously ill people out there, undiagnosed and untreated. This country has an abysmal record of spotting and helping the mentally ill. I will give you that the faith part probably exacerbated their illness- but it didn't cause it, any more than role-playing games do, as they were accused of doing in the 1970's. Those two were batshit nuts before they ever went to church.
Chris
I'm sure the rationale "the devil told him to do it" makes her sleep better at night, but I'm quite sure Satan's schedule is packed and that he most likely couldn't find the time to send a postcard to this guy, much less a phone call or a personal meeting. Those nine levels of Hell ain't gonna run themselves, you know. How self-important these influenced-by-the-devil people think they are.
Dilettantes. Raw, squirming, and whole, stuffed into the maw, down the gullet, and plunk into the hydrochloric acid is how Satan does it. They should have realized the instant that the voices in their heads demanded that the sacrifice be cooked that they were dealing with a fake.
sounds more like something from the Chthulu cookbook, to me.
are you sure you don't have those two recipes mixed up there PZ?
or maybe I confused it with a Martha Stewart cooking show.
whatever, I'm a pragmatist.
Bite me. ;/
As for the rest of you, I have a 34-month old girl, so I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to sit the baby-eating jokes out. :/ Unlike every self-conscious idiot I've ever wanted to smack I'm not gonna berate you for indulging, though x.x
PZ: Aren't you the guy who's supposed to be all about evidence? But here we have you just plain making it up like you're channeling Kent Hovind:
"Their baby, though, was a godless heathen who never read the bible. So I'm sure it was perfectly reasonable to put the baby in the microwave and cook her."
The wife said it was Satan feeling threatened by her husband and making him do it. That may be nonsense, but it isn't about the baby being a godless heathen, is it. And the husband doesn't seem to have said anything about Satan (in neither the AP story nor any others I read) but said he was 'stressed', so he's putting up a non-religious line of defence, or at least explanation (I'd have thought you'd be pleased by that).
In another article on this: " Eva Mauldin says her husband is not "the monster people are making him out to be." " It is common or spouses not to want to believe the worst of their spouse and seek to excuse it. She's rattled and clutching at straws and if she's babbling, what's your excuse, hundreds of miles away and not having your life ripped apart?
Hmmm...Chris, look again. I said nothing about religion causing insanity. I also don't seriously endorse the idea that Satan did it. What I am mocking is this common use of religion as an excuse for insane behavior.
I presume you'll agree with me that "Satan made me do it" is no more effective an excuse than "I felt like doing something evil"?
mike-
you're seriously trying to say that if someone you knew personally stuffed your kid in a microwave...
the stress would make you say "Satan made them"?
really?
I see no need to apologize for insanity here.
Gotta say, PZ, you're really reaching here. This is way out there, even for you. The guy is clearly mentally ill. If Christianity didn't exist, the wife would almost certainly have found a different excuse to try to rationalize her husband's act.
Troll repellant: no, it wouldn't have been any prettier if it had been Stalin instead of Satan. It also wouldn't have changed the underlying point. Religion is a force for destruction no matter what form it takes. That includes supposedly atheist "civil religion" systems, as well. Pull on that thread for a while before you try to run your trollery here.
Maybe it was God, not Satan, who made him do it.
After all, God has a track record on this kind of thing.
Hubby has passed the sacrifice-your-child-for-God test with flying colors!
A great beginning to what promises to be a truly inspiring ministry!
Ichthyic: Because my religious background and life experience are different than that of Eva Mauldin, I'd be grasping at some other straw to avoid thinking my spouse was a monster and/or that I was at fault for even having a child with someone who could do that.
Yes, the guy is nuts, and I'm not saying otherwise. I don't understand where some of you are getting this weird idea that I'm saying he's not off his rocker.
Sure, if I tried to nuke a baby, my wife wouldn't say Satan made me do it: she'd say that I'd lost my mind and needed medical attention. It's sad to see that the 'devil made me do it' excuse is so ordinary that some people don't see the point in highlighting it as part of a problem.
Highlighting is one thing, making up stuff is another. Or lying only bad when it is 'for Jesus'?
Mike, it's called satire. You're supposed to realise PZ made up "Their baby, though, was a godless heathen who never read the bible."
It's a riff on a line occasionally used by atheists in debates with the faithful. Roughly:
Everyone is born an atheist and remains so for several years, until the indoctrination takes effect.
You can have your very own bumpersticker making the point from cafepress.
http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion.26806681
Yes, she likely is very distraught and we should pity her. It's still evidence of a self deceiving mindset.
Then there's the part where God gets the glory for good things and also any silver lining
found in the bad things.
Since God is omnipotent, Satan can do nothing without God's permission. God allowed this to happen, with or without Satan's assistance. Or there is no god.
First: A grand jury indicted Joshua Mauldin last week on child injury charges after hearing evidence that he placed the two-month-old in a motel microwave for 10 to 20 seconds.
Why did he take the baby to a motel...? Admittedly, this entire episode is ridiculous, but that struck me as exceedingly bizarre. And what kind of motel has in-room microwaves that are large enough to fit a baby? There's no way I could fit one into the microwave in my apartment. Maybe I should upgrade.
Second: why does everyone rush to blame Satan for atrocities against children? God's track record on this is far more troubling. There was that whole 'death of the firstborn' thing with Egypt, to start with, and I'm sure there was a sizeable number of infants that perished in the flood. He allowed himself to be goaded by Satan into killing Job's seven sons (although he avoids the charge of hypocrisy here by being equally willing to allow the death of his own). And, most relevant to this case, there was the whole faith-testing episode with Abraham and Isaac--only here, the loving father used the popcorn setting instead of a knife. Conversely, Satan's biblical record is relatively spotless, limited to a handful of skeptical conversations and some minor possessions.
All I'm sayin' is that I'd think long and hard about which one I'd pick to babysit.
Umm, I'm fairly confident that a two-month old baby is not contemplating the fine nuances of the Nicene Creed, nor is she likely to have been reading the bible unless she is spectacularly precocious. I'm afraid the godless illiteracy of an infant was my only assumption -- if it was wrong, I'd be interested to learn about that, and maybe then the excuse that it was Satan's fault would be more believable. I'd be wondering about supernatural intervention if a kid that young were preachifyin' and studyin' on the gospels, that's for sure!
Fortunately, the baby has survived. Has someone already commented that it survived thanks to God's help? And would that be less insane than the Satan comment?
It is just the mechanism of thought of some Christians. If something bad happens: Satan --- something good:
God. So, it was Satan by definition.
As far as I know, God stopped killing babies after the Old Testament era.
Why does Satan get the blame here ?
If its a case of calling on some guy to kill his own child then surely we should look to that other mythical figure who actually has form for this sort of thing.
I mean if they had microwaves in Abraham's day then who knows, maybe God would have commanded him to blast his kiddie for a minute at full power (although being a merciful God he would have reset the cooker to 20 seconds on low power - praise be!).
Fortunately, the baby has survived. Has someone already commented that it survived thanks to God's help? And would that be less insane than the Satan comment?
no, it would not.
but this brings up an interesting question.
who pulled the baby OUT of the microwave?
PZ's comment about the baby being a sinful heathen reminded me of something I heard a fundamentalist hateball say once; that babies, squawling as they do for attention, food and to be changed and cleaned up when the food has made its journey, are selfish, and therefore sinful.
Throw in a dose of mental illness, and it's easy to comprehend how a fundamentalist hateball could put their baby in a microwave, but don't call them Christian, PZ, because such an act spits on everything Christ ever taught about how to treat your fellow human beings.
Now I know the Christian dogma is that none of us is perfect, but for fuck's sake, you'd think even the fundies would cut infants a little slack. Or did they miss that part of the bible where Christ says "Let the little ones come unto me, for to them belongs the kingdom of Heaven" - hardly dismissal as seething balls of selfish sin.
The problem with fundamentalist hateballs isn't the fact that they're religious, PZ: it's the fact that they deliberately pare everything out of Christian teaching that has the slightest suggestion of compassion, tolerance or mercy, and then apply the bastardized results to everyone else. The compassion, tolerance and mercy, they save for themselves. Atheists aren't immune, either: "Some animals are more equal than others..."
Gandhi said it all: "I admire Christ, but not Christians."
"you'd think even the fundies would cut infants a little slack"
Depends which fundies. According to some, Original Sin means that babies are born in a state of sin, alienated from God and requiring salvation.
Religion is such a great excuse-generator, though - it's just full of rationalizations of all kinds.
The point is not that this woman would rationalize (oh, the irony of language) the behavior away no matter what. The point is that religion makes it so much easier to do.
"What I am mocking is this common use of religion as an excuse for insane behavior."
I once had the experience in school of living in an off-campus apartment for a week with a young man who was, unfortunately for him and those around him, insane. (I was living there already; a roommate had moved out; and this fellow kept himself looking and sounding normal enough long enough for the landlord to rent to him as a new roommate.) For days at a time, he did not sleep that I saw. He "cleaned" repeatedly by marching through the house with cans of Glade and Lysol in each hand, spraying them into the air until they were empty. He alternated this with episodes of making an unholy mess of the bathroom (the landlord had to bring in a service to clean the walls afterward), and screaming at me that the Devil, or the Supreme Court, would condemn me.
The point is that the insane, like all of us, internalize the images and messages of the culture, but their filters on such messages work differently (obviously). Religion, like Glade, Lysol, and the judicial branch of government, is a persistent source of such images and messages.
I am wondering why this should be remarkable to anyone at all, or, particularly in the case of a tragedy such as the killing of a baby, a source of mockery.
It happened in Texas. Of course.
Last year, my daughter's elementary school teacher went on at length, telling my daughter that she was going to be "left behind" at the Rapture... Praise Science there was no large, industrial-sized microwave oven in the classroom!
It is common or spouses not to want to believe the worst of their spouse and seek to excuse it.
I don't get this at all. If my boyfriend put our child in a microwave and I found out, I wouldn't be protecting him. I'd be giving the police advice on where to look for a piece of him large enough to get a DNA identification off of so that they could confirm his death. What sort of a nut, religious or otherwise, sticks with a man who would microwave a baby, while in his right mind or otherwise?
Praise Science there was no large, industrial-sized microwave oven in the classroom!
Adults don't microwave well, anyway, your daughter would have needed a deep-fryer to cook that teacher properly.
This shows just how useful religion is. It can be used to justify and excuse any and all behaviors, no matter how insane, destructive or self-serving.
What other purpose does religion serve?
What other purpose does religion serve?
I tend to believe that religion can, at its best, be, as Marx said, the opium of the masses. Opiates can, of course, be abused an addictive. But they have their uses. Keeping away intolerable pain that can't be relieved in any other way, for example. Sometimes I'm sorry that I have the narcan of atheism and rational thought to keep the possibility of that opium dream away...then I read stories like this one and am glad that that's one insanity that I have so far avoided.
Per Circe's comment, these types of things seem to happen disproportionately more often in Texas. Before I even got through the story and had a chance to look at the beginning of it, I knew it had to be Texas. WTF is happening in Texas??? People stoning their kids, drowning them, microwaving them, all because god told them to? It just seems odd...I live in the southeast and it just seems that it happens freakishly often there.
I'll let you know later today, after my synagogue's weekly food drive.
Ya know, for people who call themselves scientists, a lot of you sure love logical fallacies when they can justify your hatred of religion.
And will post a rebuttal using this computer, in an air-conditioned room, wearing synthetic fabrics and taking the pharmaceuticals that keep me sane.
Surprisingly, you all have missed the real reason Mr. Joshua Royce Mauldin was willing to sacrifice his daugther. The best way to prove his devotion to God. After all, Avraham was about to sacrifice his son Itzhak, only to be saved by an angel? Unfortunately, the angel this time had some difficulties openning the microwave oven door in time. Nevertheless, the intent of the future priest, not the outcome, is what counts.
I hope you haven't mixed with natural fabrics, or we will have to stone you to death. Sorry, it's the law.
Leave it to PZ to blame religion. This is why creationism can advance - because of PZ and Dawkins. If they just kept quiet about atheism, no one would even try to push ID in the schools.
Speaking of logical fallacies, since when does people helping other people with charity provide support for the superstitious premises of religion? Here's a revelation for you: atheists donate food and money and assistance to the needy, too.
What other purpose does religion serve?
Provides fun words to scream at point of orgasm.
Austin: "God's track record on this is far more troubling."
Yes come to think of it he would have done better to say "God asked me to do it" there are are least precedents for that.
Brandon,
I guess that you would not be able to do any good for needy humans if not for your synagogue's weekly food drive. Tell me, is religion the impetus to collect food for the hungry or it is the other way around? Why one must have to be religious to feel for the less fortunate?
"Why one must have to be religious to feel for the less fortunate?"
Because without God we're all fundamentally corrupt, evil, selfish, raping/pillaging/looting scumbags who'd never lift a finger to help another. Gosh, S., I thought that was obvious! I mean, who hasn't wanted to burn entire villages to the ground just to enjoy the screaming? I know I have!
Eek!
(obscure reference brought to you by Graham Chapman...)
You're right, rrt. I completely forgot about Rev. Jones and the Jonestown incedent.
I hope the baby is taken away from those...people.
Justin Moretti,
If I remember correctly, that's actually Augustine.
I am interested in those who opt for the mentally ill side of this - this includes you Orac. Now beating or shaking a baby till he/she is badly damaged is unfortunately fairly common (stepfathers apparently do this more than fathers which is something Darwin might have predicted.)
So here is the question: Do you consider ANYONE who violently damages a baby to be mentally ill? Or you do reserve it for those who use the microwave? What other tools would make him qualify for the mentall ill designation?
Note the guy said he was stessed, not that the devil did it, that was his wife rationalizing.
Ms. Mauldin has set up a MySpace page, "Joshua Mauldin is not a Monster," in hopes of defending her husband and making pleas for people to help her.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-baby_21tex…
This does not appear to be available.
Grandma of baby speaks:
http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/kmsb-20070517-khoujc-bab…
Father: "God told him to move to Galveston!"
That's when they should have realized something was very wrong.
What kind of god would do that!?
Religion brings the babes!
Eight wives not enough for convicted bigamist
I miss Flip Wilson.
It is common or spouses not to want to believe the worst of their spouse and seek to excuse it.
might be form of stockholm syndrome ....ive heard from a FOAF about a woman who lost her arm from being battered and still didnt leave that viscious a**hole ....and remember creos dont allow women to think for themselves either ..shes probably thinking for the fist time in her life and she can't do it
Joshua Mauldin, a monster? No. He's a seriously ill young man. IMHO.
Jud:
Jud, I agree with you in principle, but I question whether or not this applies to the event under discussion. Did you read the news article?
First, the baby wasn't killed. Second, the guy who put the baby in the oven didn't offer a faith-based excuse - he said he was stressed. (In other words, he has absolutely no idea why he did it.) It was the baby's mother who let him off the hook completely by invoking Satan as the evil-doer.
There's no indication that the mother, who is the one being "mocked," suffers from any chronic mental illness.
PZ's error, then, was in saying "their excuse" instead of "her excuse."
* * *
The faith-based excuse generator works any way you want it to. I just pulled the lever, and look what came out:
"God intervened in this young man's plans to become a preacher because His Omniscience foresaw that the young man would become another Jerry Falwell. God could not stomach this, so He, in his infinite wisdom, forced the man to perform an act that would haunt him the rest of his life while doing relatively little harm to the infant, who wouldn't remember a thing because, as everyone knows, babies can't feel pain and don't remember it anyway (e.g., circumcision)."
See? Everything happens for a reason. This was actually a GOOD thing. Rejoice! One day the little girl may pay some hard-earned money to some mind-twisting godbanging hucksters so that she can publish a book called Thank God I was Microwaved as a Baby!
Look. The real point is that the mind that cranks out "He's a nice guy, really. The Devil made him do it," is not the same mind that realizes that this nice guy had some kind of psychotic break and needs help very badly, and that the baby will continue to be at risk until the situation is addressed. That's what we're talking about here. Joshua Mauldin is right at the age where schizophrenia can take person away, and that may be what is happening.
I sympathize with his wife's horror and her denial response, but to blame the devil? Honestly - what possible good can come from that? It's just another example of the shifting of responsibility (or credit) from the living to the supernatural, and who or what shall we blame for this dynamic? Popular culture?
When it comes to charitable works, of course Jud makes a valid point. Religious organizations do plenty of good work, and the organizations that sponsor these works, and the people who actually perform them, do deserve credit. However, the religion is entirely optional. Any rational person knows this, Jud included (or so I assume).
Obviously, some will argue that the the high price of these works, as exacted from humankind and the human psyche, outweighs the value of the works themselves. I can't claim to know how to measure that.
Owens has said he did divorce some of the wives, but he can't remember which ones.
File under "people unclear on the concept"
Kseniya: You're correct, I didn't read the article (tend to stay away from that sort of thing, Anna Nicole Smith news, etc.). Sorry for the confusion of message caused by my misapprehension of the facts, but most fundamentally (no pun intended) relieved that the baby survived.
"Look. The real point is that the mind that cranks out 'He's a nice guy, really. The Devil made him do it,' is not the same mind that realizes that this nice guy had some kind of psychotic break and needs help very badly...."
Well, it depends. Such a way of speaking may be colloquial, and doesn't by itself absolutely indicate a disbelief in the effectiveness of modern psychopharmacology. If it does indicate such disbelief, well, bad news for everyone, same as when anybody for any reason ignores the possibility of available medical help.
You also credited me with what I think was Brandon's (#41) point, that religion can be an organizing principle for good. I feel, simply and trivially, that religion can be an organizing principle for good or evil (food drives vs. The Crusades, etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam). It has undoubtedly been one of the most powerful such forces for both in history, quite unsurprisingly.
I also feel, in terms of the chicken-and-egg question, that human good and evil impulses pre-exist religion and other such organizing principles, and that these principles (e.g., spreading freedom and democracy abroad) will be used to amplify these impulses forever and ever, world without end, Amen or no Amen.
He's not a bigamist, he's an octogamist! (And can anyone cite a law against octogamy? Where?)
At the most, he's a bigamist cubed.
"Note the guy said he was stessed, not that the devil did it, that was his wife rationalizing."
Stressed? Isn't that a naturalistic/materialistic excuse?
I have a really sick feeling after reading that. How disgusting. I would imagine that alcohol and/or drugs were involved, and that the parents are simply invoking religion because it's the only way anyone is going to sympathize with them.
Did you see the video attached to that article though? At the end of it, the hotel manager says that it makes him want to have cameras in the rooms. Think about that. You could be getting it on in your room (with your opposite sex spouse wed in holy matrimony, of course), and the hotel manager would be eating chips off his chest, leaning back in his chair and watching you on the security cam. How delightful! But at least he would know the instant you went crazy and decided to microwave a baby.
I know everyone's been tongue-in-cheek about how much an infant should know about Christianity, but there is a real-life exemplar of this "belief" that is bigger than anyone would like to think possible. Google Gary Ezzo and prepare to vomit.
He and his wife have a multimillion-dollar industry promoting their own brand of raising children (Growing Kids God's Way), and it's based on teaching children to learn the consequences of their evil nature starting in infancy. There was an uproar a few years ago when several infants brought into emergency rooms across the country with dehydration turned out to be victims of the Ezzos' suggested feeding schedule. You see, when babies cry, it's not because they need something, it's because they're being selfish and sinful and have to be taught obedience. I'm not making this up - I wish I were. The Ezzos were thrown out of their own home church and have amassed a huge amount of criticism from both secular and Christian psychologists, pediatricians, and theologians, but are still raking in the money persuading Christians that their parenting style is really what God wants.
Sorry, I meant to do a link to his name. This site is a compendium of the insanity of the Ezzos.
CalGeorge gets my next Molly vote for #47.
Hi Jud,
Yes, the baby lived and will be ok, and I believe we're all relieved. I forgot to mention that her burns are probably less sever than those inflicted upon a toddler up here in Boston several years ago, by her mother, through the punative application of boiling water. IIRC, neither religion nor mental illness were implicated in that crime. It seems the mother was just an evil, sadistic bitch. :-|
You're quite right, I conflated your post with Brandon's. Sorry. Sloppy me.
You are right again. We don't really know where (or if) psychotherapy and psychpharm fit into her belief system. However, I think you missed a key element here, which the wife's explicitly stated assessment of Satan's role:
She wasn't just saying "I have no idea why he didn't, it's not like him." She was ascribing action AND motivation to this external, supernatural entity. It wasn't just a colloquialism or a metaphor. Statements like that rise up from a foundation of genuine belief, don't you think?
Of course, it's possible that she can holds these beliefs, which lead her to fall back on supernatural explanations in times of grief and despair, and yet may still be able to subsequently recognize that the true cause is mental illness... but on this point, we can only speculate.
Carlie - WOW. That's appalling.
This past summer, I caught part of a trial on Court TV -- I think it was even in Texas -- where the defendant pleaded insanity and claimed that Satan told her to kill whoever she killed. In the particular state (again, I think it was Texas), the insanity defense is limited to those who are incapable of appreciating the wrongness of their axctions. I heard a prosecution psychiatrist testify that the defendant wasn't, by that standard, insane. He "reasoned" that if she thought GOD had told her to kill, she wouldn't know the killing was wrong because God is good. But because she believed that SATAN told her to kill, she wasn't insane because she, since Stan is evil, she knew that the killing was wrong.
I'm not kidding.
I think she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but I'm not sure. I am sure about the preposterous testimony.
I meant, of course, "since SATAN is evil." My apologies to Stan.
So, has this changed your opinion on eugenics at all? Even if these two whackjobs aren't genetically predisposed towards their insanity, they sure as _HELL_ shouldn't be allowed to have any more children.
If they just kept quiet about atheism, no one would even try to push ID in the schools.
I'm sorry, but... hahahahahahahahaha!!!! That was a good one.
"He "reasoned" that if she thought GOD had told her to kill, she wouldn't know the killing was wrong because God is good. But because she believed that SATAN told her to kill, she wasn't insane because she, since Stan is evil, she knew that the killing was wrong."
Makes a lot of sense to me, given our biblical society. After all we should EXPECT that Satan would tempt us, and know well enough not to do anything she says. If on the other hand God told you to kill the child - well you would have to do it - just like Abraham was prepared to, even if society would hang you. But they wont. Because anyone who thinks God tells them to kill a baby must be absolutely crazy. Always go for the God defence, never the Satan defence! If you can convince them on the God defence you are home free (or at least in a sanatarium).
No sweat, CJ. I get that a lot.
The medical community has a long record of approaching problems as diseases and solving them.
The criminal justice community has no similarly successful record of reducing crime.
It's confusing. If you're a believer and buy into that whole scam about Jesus (not the guy that mows my lawn) running the whole show, including letting the bad guy Satan (not the vice president) unleash his anti-social behavior upon a nation blessed by god (jesus's dad? I thought Joseph was the father - so confusing) because, eh, er, we're "blessed", I guess frying your baby's 2 month old noodle because it doesn't read the bible, uh, er, makes "sense". I can just picture the whole cast and crew, knocking off after hours, having a smoke and a beer, Satan standing there saying, "Hey Jessie, that latest script you wrote for me was wacky! I thought you'd never top yourself after that Jim Jones thing and bailing on the Jews during WWII, but this, this is pure genius, you nut!". Jesus is sitting there, with that smirk of his, a half a butt sticking out of his lips, an aura of smugness permeating the room like he just dropped wolf bait. "Yeah, I really burned the midnight oil on that one. Ha ha, those christian fundamentalists - what a bunch of morons! They just don't get it, do they? We're all just actors living out some seriously sick shit. We all work for the same guy!".
That's a good question, sailor. As the father of a needy child, I understand how the stress of dealing with them at their worst (screaming all night when all you want to do is sleep, etc.) can sometimes ramp up your stress level enough to make you want to do something like shake the little bugger.
But putting the infant in a microwave and turning it on is different somehow. Not only does your instinctive reaction have a more visceral "wrong" feel because you're using tools and radiation to injure your own, but I think it also suggests a much more deliberate, premeditated act. It's not an instant reaction; it's a series of steps you have to take in order to commit a cruelty.
Yes, certainly. Either that, or it's insanity.
This has "psychotic break" written all over it. IMO. It reminds me of the story of the well-adjusted and successful college-aged guy who one day, for no reason, killed his pet hamster. His parents found him some time later, still desparately (and remorsefully) trying to revive the little critter via CPR. Needless to say, they were shocked and disturbed.
The onset of schizophrenia is a life-altering event. This microwave story has the same sort of feel to it.
The claim that "God told him to move to Galveston" is a psychological red flag - to people like us. But not to them or to many of the people they know. Nuking the tot, however, is a fireworks display from wherever you stand.
I'm inclined to agree. As a father myself I cannot believe that anyone but a delusional psychotic or outright sociopath would harm an infant in a way that requires more than a second or two to contemplate and execute--long enough for even extremely poor impulse control to kick in, in other words. O.o (By contrast, I can at least understand the psychology behind impulsive acts of violence like hitting or shaking--they're over before that person's lazy conscience can stop them).
Maybe Satan was actually the baby's father, and this was his way of trying to gain custody...
You don't believe that yourself, so I must conclude you're a concern troll.
Azkyroth, I think you're on to something there. Most of the parent-on-child violence that I've been unfortunate enough to witness would fit what you describe. Poor impulse control (rather than "evil" or the level of insanity described above) certainly doesn't excuse the perps, but it may just be a very good description of what's going on, and useful in that it points to ways to address the problem (in future, for others with the same problem, that is--the cases I'm thinking about are long dead, and I was a child when I witnessed them).
I had never thought of it that way before--thanks for the insight.
....
I'm pretty sure this was parody.
Not mental disorders, though.
Pierce R. Butler at #62 said in reference to the bigamist preacher with eight wives:
Wouldn't he be a bigamist '8 choose 2' times? I think that's 28. Perhaps his wives would prefer to seen him cubed though.
I think you guys have answered one point - that putting a baby in a microwave is wierder and takes longer (gives more time for reflection) than whacking or shaking.
But at what point can you say this is madness rather than poor control and bad ideas. Don't get me wrong, there is a level at which actions are detirmened by bicohemtistry and genetics, so responsibility is in some sense moot. Still we make a distinction in the courts as to whether the hardware has gone haywire (I thought the baby was the sunday joint), and poor control and training (having anger problems is not usually considered an excuse unless they can be shown to be extreme - like a tumor messing up part of the brain).
Can there by any action that a priori can be considered the act of a completely insane man?
Azkyroth, you put it better than I did.
Boy, Sailor, you sure know how to ask the difficult questions. I think how you're getting into areas that even the experts aren't completely sure of. (Not being an expert myself, that's my impression, anyway.) We're talking about some of the deep down working of the human mind, and an awful lot there isn't fully understood. I imagine there's a lot of judgement calls, a lot of best-guesswork, with gradual progress being made in various related fields and a lot of false starts (as in any complex scientific study). I could make some educated guesses from a philosophical point of view, but I would be ill-equipped to answer that from a legal or scientific angle.
(Sorry, that should be "I think now you're getting into areas...")
I make the point because I think there is a tendency to make assumptions that someone is crazy based on their action if they do something exteme we would not do. In this post a lot of people have stated this young man is obviously crazy based on his actions. He may be, but it is by no means obvious to me that he is. He may just have an anger management problem. We can be in danger of tautology here in the same way Xtians are when they say "thank God" anytime anything good happens. If we say everytime someone does something aweful "he must be mad" and mean it, we are redefining the meaning of madness.
Of course. Nobody to the left of D'Souza believes religion is a requirement to do good things. I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your logic:
Headline: Man commits crime using religion as excuse.
You guys: OMG RELIGION IS TEH EVIL!!!!!
Me: I use religion as a means to do charity
You guys: BUT ATHEISTS CAN DO CHARITY TOO!!!
Of course, an athiest and a theist are just as capable of microwaving a baby as giving to the poor. In these two specific examples, though, religion was a driving force, for better or worse. Why is the institution of religion itself to blame when it causes evil, but ignored when it causes good?
Thank you Jud, for bringing objective and open-minded regardless of what your beliefs are.
That's a good point. I'm not sure what the answer is, really--though I'm inclined to agree with others that this looks very much like the onset of schizophrenia. If that's the case, this can be good news, since that's treatable. IF he gets help, of course, and if his wife gets her way this would be very bad news indeed.
Two young people with a very young infant. Add cramming for an exam and a touch of existential doubt, and no wonder you get a two way freak out. And where were their parents?
There are times when everybody, regardless of age, could use some support. Why were these two kids left on their own?
Is this new troll 'Mike' the same as the one on AtheistRevolution?
Brandon, you make a good point that we are engaging in a bit of selective reasoning, much as I hate to say so. I'll take you one step further: religion didn't cause this and the guy who did it isn't using it as an excuse. And as much as I think his wife is wrong (and potentially suicidally misguided) to think this was the work of the Devil instead of something like psychosis, I don't think it's fair to say she's using it as an excuse either.
A lot of what you're seeing here in people's reactions to religion is pent-up frustration with being a persecuted minority, which, as a Jew, you might have some passing familiarity with (I don't mean that sarcastically; I'm thinking here that you may not have experienced persecution directly, but the Jewish community is very mindful of its collective experiences). That's mixed with a heavy influx of watching representatives of the majority publicly say things that are
1) nonsensical,
2) counterproductive,
3) hateful,
4) anti-scientific,
5) anti-commonsense, and/or
6) actively destructive,
and seeing the public somehow accept those statements as normal, whereas anyone who suggests that "Um, maybe this whole religion thing is mistaken" is shouted down and called names.
Add to that seeing one group do something heinously evil in the name of their religion (e.g. 9/11), and members of another religion turning and blaming it on the atheists, among others. Then we see horrible things being done in Iraq and elsewhere in the name of Christianity (as if the New Testament were irrelevant), and then be told that atheism is EEVILLLLL!.
Ahem...sorry, not to go on and on--which I seem to have done. I'm just trying to give you an idea where some of that sentiment comes from. Thank you, by the way, for not blowing up at people's reaction to your initial post; I appreciate you keeping the discourse civil. I also want to say it's admirable you're able to hang out on an atheist board and make thoughtful contributions.
Sailor:
I think you make too much of this tendency, which depends very much on the nature of the act and the circumstances under which the act was committed.
My admittedly speculative assessment of the man's mental state is based on more than just the action itself. I can easily imagine someone doing the exact same thing due to sadism or lack of impulse control. I don't think this is a case of either.
You're right to say "We don't really know" but you're wrong (in my case, anyway) to assume the assessment is made simply based on the crossing of some arbitrarily drawn behavioral threshold. I think you do your blogmates a disservice by thinking them so simple-minded.
Your posts raise interesting questions, though, that's for sure.
Was Ted Bundy insane? John Wayne Gacy? Jeffrey Dahmer? Eric Harris? Cho Seung-Hui? Some of those guys were not obviously crazy, though each one of them unquestionably did do "something exteme we would not do."
But does sociopathy become, at any point, grounds for an insanity plea? I think, historically, it tends not to. If it does, we may be on the road to The Country of the Kind.
PZ wrote:
****
Hmmm...Chris, look again. I said nothing about religion causing insanity. I also don't seriously endorse the idea that Satan did it. What I am mocking is this common use of religion as an excuse for insane behavior.
I presume you'll agree with me that "Satan made me do it" is no more effective an excuse than "I felt like doing something evil"?
****
Absolutely correct. But it's pointless to point your finger at religion in this case- it's as pointless as pointing your finger at Dungeons and Dragons, or at David Berkowitz' neighbor's dog (although there was a demon in the dog, if you believe Berkowitz). These people are insane so whatever they say just reflects the cultural milieu they happen to have experienced last, or most intensely, or something.
Kseniya said: "Of course, it's possible that she can hold these beliefs, which lead her to fall back on supernatural explanations in times of grief and despair, and yet may still be able to subsequently recognize that the true cause is mental illness...."
Well, here's what I'm saying: When this person says "Satan" caused her husband's problem, she may at one and the same time believe that the Devil his ownself actually caused her husband to do this, and also that the doctor can help God keep Satan out of her husband's head with a liberal application of antipsychotic drugs.
I lived in the Bible Belt for seven years, and the belief systems of everyday people there support both big churches and big medical centers. They can take their sick loved ones to healing preachers or watch them on TV, then on to the doctor, and see absolutely no contradiction. "God helps those who help themselves" might be one way to summarize this combination of spiritual and practical attitudes, or slightly more cynically, "any port in a storm."
Right, right... which yields equations like this:
HeartAttack + EMT + ER + heartSurgery + ICU + Nursing = ThankGod!
So who feels like arguing that religion does _not_ empower madness today?
You can say, "Sure, but most people can handle religion!" To which I reply, "_Most_ people can handle marijuana but it's still illegal."
Faith-based madness doesn't have to end at a microwave. I can think of one person in particular who talks to god (whether he answers we don't have a clear indication) whose "faith" has weakened our nation and killed 600,000 Iraqis. "Gut-based faith" instead of intelligent reason oozes out all over if you just have the eyes to see.
Oops... looks entirely possible. At least I got one of the two premises right. :o)
You mean that, when that particular guy says the sky is blue, you believe him?
Not that I knew anything, but he and his wife have been to church much less often than one might think.
Story just gets weirder. From the local Galveston paper.
((incidentally, in the initial AP story, the guy did NOT finger "the Devil" but told investigators that he was frustrated/overwhelmed with everything involved in providing adequate care for the child; Now Texas CPS is forced to do what this shit-for-brains wouldn't--turn the child over to foster-and someday hopefully adoptive--parents. -JJR))
================================================
Cop details attacks on burned baby
By Scott E. Williams
The Daily News
Published May 22, 2007
GALVESTON -- A police detective Tuesday morning described a series of attacks on an infant that led to the child being badly burned in a microwave oven.
Detective Holly Johnson testified in a bond-reduction hearing for Joshua Mauldin, 19, that Mauldin detailed for her everything leading up to the child being cooked.
Mauldin and his 2-month-old daughter were alone in a Seawall Boulevard hotel room shortly before 2 a.m. on May 10.
"(Mauldin) became agitated," Johnson said, from the witness box in the 212th State District Court in Galveston.
"He picked her up from one bed and threw her onto another one. He then hit her, punched her, in the groin area. He placed her in the hotel-room safe and shut the door for approximately five seconds.
"He then took her and put her in the refrigerator and shut the door for about five seconds."
After that, Johnson said, Mauldin took the girl out, put her in the microwave oven and turned it on.
Johnson testified that Mauldin admitted the entire course of events in an interview with her on May 14.
Johnson's testimony dominated a court hearing Tuesday morning on defense attorney Charles Kaufmann's motion to reduce Mauldin's bond.
In an initial appearance last week, 405th State District Court Judge Wayne Mallia had set Mauldin's bond at $250,000.
Kaufmann had asked Judge Susan Criss to reduce that amount to $100,000.
However, prosecutor Xochitl Vandiver argued that Mauldin was an Arkansas resident with "absolutely no ties whatsoever" to Galveston County, making him a flight risk.
On his Myspace page, which has since been removed from public view, Mauldin said he was bringing his family to Galveston to accept a call to ministry.
Another of Kaufmann's motions may have played a role in Criss' ultimate rejection of the bond motion.
Kaufmann has asked the court to appoint a psychiatrist to evaluate Mauldin, to determine whether he is competent to stand trial.
In Tuesday's hearing, Criss asked Kaufmann what assurances she could have that Mauldin would know when to show up for court after bonding out if his competence were an issue.
Kaufmann responded that leaving him in jail until after the evaluation would likely be the best course.
Criss appointed Dr. Victor Scarano to examine Mauldin. Scarano is a forensic psychiatrist who has testified for prosecutors and defense attorneys in a career that has spanned decades.
Mauldin faces a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm, which carries a possible prison term of five to 99 years, as well as a fine of up to $10,000.
====================================================
(*Please note this maniac is NOT from Texas, but from Arkansas.)
Okay, then. It looks like the "extended lapse of impulse control" faction wins. Wow.
Teenagers shouldn't be parents.
llewelly wrote:
The medical community has a long record of approaching problems as diseases and solving them.
Then why are people still being possessed then, huh? :-P
JJR: Well, the details only made it all the more frightening. Incidents like this help me understand how the belief in demonic possession could have co-evolved in different cultures, independent of each other.
To act like that towards an infant indeed seems both otherworldy and inexplicably evil - thus, an otherworldly evil. Especially understandable, since this happened before the rise of modern psychology - concepts like "psychosis" and "schizophrenia" were yet unheard of.
I'm inclined to agree, but it's worth noting that I had a child at 19 and never did anything like this, or even felt like it. :/
You don't believe that yourself, so I must conclude you're a concern troll.
Oops... looks entirely possible. At least I got one of the two premises right. :o)
You mean that, when that particular guy says the sky is blue, you believe him?
Not that I knew anything, but he and his wife have been to church much less often than one might think.
I stumbled across this site while looking for something entirely different. The look on my face must be preciuos as I read the crap here. Twilight zone.