I'm up for some vigilante justice if you are.
Posted by Vána (Member # 3262) on :
Wow.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I hope this isn't what I think it is.
Okay, I hereby declare that if you are worried about your child being possesed by the devil, you can drop him or her off at my house and I will raise them until you come to your senses.
This kind of thing is just so sad.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
There are some truly messed up people in this world.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Bob, I am worried I might be possessed by the devil.
Can I come live at your house?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Slash...I have the room under the stairs all ready for you...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Me thinks it was not the baby who was possessed by evil.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
See, THIS is why some of us think certain people should be sterilized and never allowed to breed.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
That poor baby! Slash, I totally agree. Some people should not be allowed to procreate.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
horrified. utterly.
there are just some things so evil i really can't stand to let myself think about it in stark detail. this is one of those things. god.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I must admit, I just don't understand this.
I think that I am an angry person. Sometimes a violent person. Certainly not a person to be trusted with children full time.
And I can't imagine doing this. Where is a person, what has become of their mind, that this is the thing that they do? It's incomprehensible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As horrified as I am by this, why has no one here considered the possibility that the child really WAS possessed by a demon, and that this killing was a mercy and salvation?
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
No.
And neither did you. But you are trying to score points.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This is why I think the words "Based on a true story" should be edited out of The Exorcist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I AM trying to score points. Because while I think it's tragic that this child is dead, I'll freely admit that I don't know the family and they're an abstraction for me. Consequently, the bit I find most interesting here is the presumed religious mania; kids are killed regularly for less cinematic causes. Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
My mood would be better if I hadn't just read that.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Indeed.
Maybe it's just a reminder of the wide array of stupid reasons people have for violently kiling their kids.
I am just as shocked by drug moms who starve their kids, or dads who shake their babies to death because they won't stop crying.
Is it worse than those? No.
But the same question remains for me. How does a person get to the point in their head, where this is a good idea? I can't see there from here.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Tom
They admitted it was religious. That's why they were walking naked in sub-freezing weather. To freeze the demons from their souls.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't think there is any type of exorcism ritual (if that's what was going on here, the facts are pretty slim in that article) involves stabbing and strangling the person who is supposedly possessed.
These people are very, very sick. I fear for the emotional health of their other children. Did they have to watch it?
I would love to hear what type of church was supporting them.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i remember being six years old.
i see six year olds walking through the grocery store. they are so small and beautiful.
this is just evil. i can't find any other words for it. sorry, i can't even get myself into debate mode. this is straight up destructive darkness and monstrosity.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
"Freezing the demons from their souls"
That's so disturbing. The thing that shocks me (well, all of it shocks me) is that both parents were involved here. I might could accept one sicko killing their child but the fact that mom and dad did it together really gets to me.
I have a six year old. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Excuse me while I go break something.
Religion is never an excuse to harm a child. Even if you think that child is possessed (even if they ARE possessed). Funny, I don't remember any accounts of Jesus causing lasting physical injury or death to anyone while casting out demons. Pigs, yes. People, no.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
This is really petty, considering the topic of the rest of the thread, but "I might could accept" sounds so wrong to me....
Tom, I also understand at least two ways (maybe three) in which you're trying to score points, and on at least one of them I have a pretty tough time disagreeing with you.
--Pop
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
As horrid as this event is, I think that article was way too vague to start speculating on the religions (if any) involved. But this is an awful, awful event.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm going to guess Christian...
1) Best odds given a percentage of the population 2) It always seems to be someone's wacky intepretation of Christianity that's involved whenever these stories come up.
I mean, how many times have you heard of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or Zoroastrians going off their nut about demonic possession and torturing their children? I guess the closest thing would be female infanticide, but that's usually practiced not for religious reasons.
Ultimately, I just have to believe that if these people do count themselves as Christians, they are also just plain insane or completely derailed in their beliefs.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
Yeah, notice how the bible doesn't ever mention actually hurting someone in an exorcism?
God, but this is horrible. How can some one do this kind of thing? To shatter(and yes, that's the word that I think fits best) a young life? God. . .
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
From what I've heard on local radio (not much), the demonic exorcism explanition for the murder of the poor child is sketchy and may just be the investigator's first theory. I've heard nothing about the parents religion. Police had difficulty even establishing a firm identity of the parents for the first 24 hours or so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I mean, how many times have you heard of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or Zoroastrians going off their nut about demonic possession and torturing their children?"
In fairness to Christianity, this kind of story IS considerably more common in countries where these other religions are, well, more common.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As horrified as I am by this, why has no one here considered the possibility that the child really WAS possessed by a demon, and that this killing was a mercy and salvation?
Because I hadn't read this thread yet...
Seriously folks, who are you to say this kid wasn't possessed by a demon? That's no more silly a belief than half the stuff the religious folks on this forum believe. Everybody jumps on the nonjudgementalism bandwagon when we're talking trivial matters, but when kids are getting killed suddenly you're ready for some vigilante justice.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
When I believe in God I join a fulfilling community that helps me through a lot of things as well as gives me a firm moral basing. Not everyone's religious experiences are like this, but they are almost all personal things.
Killing a child is not a personal belief, it's cold hearted murder.
*Extra spaces before my smilie because I would hate to have cold hearted murder associated with it* . . . . . . Hobbes Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Yes, Tresopax, you goober.
Read your own words. Especially the ones about triviality and murder.
Non judgmentalism is fine for trivialities. Trivialities are, by their very nature, easy to be non judgemental about. If I think that I am only allowed to eat kosher beef, you may think that's silly. However, no one is being harmed by my belief, and therefore, the scrutiny placed on it will be minor.
The murder of a little kid, is, by its very nature, NON trivial. Thus, deserving of greater scrutiny, than say, whether or not people eat kosher beef.
Does the distinction escape you?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
well just like i believe in god i also believe killing is no way to solve possession, so possessed or not these parents had no right to do what they did to that child, or even to the surviving children.
fixes nothing, excuses nothing, they are still totally and completely effed up.
[ January 20, 2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sorry, Pop but I have heard of too many things. The stories my husband could tell of horrible things he's seen done to children....
I'm not saying what they are doing is acceptable, but that I wouldn't raise as much of an eyebrow if it were only one parent. The fact that they did it together, that's just more frightening. Bad enough to think there is one sicko out there, but a pair of them? With two more children?
This isn't about religion, not really. I'm sure they may think it is - this is about the parents being sick and twisted or evil or all three.
Even if the child were demon possessed, ridding someone of a demon does not involve killing them. Even the man possessed by Legion survived, and Jesus didn't stab or strangle him or freeze him in order to send the demons out of him into the pigs.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
As an added bonus:
If you believe people are possessed by demons, and this causes you to not hang out with them, or to make funny signs with your hands at them, or even to glare at them in anger, then no one will care. The belief itself may be non trivial to you, but the net affect is trivial to the rest of us. We are ok with it.
When you use your belief in demons as a reason to murder children, the belief itself may still be trivial, but the net affect no longer is.
That's the line, Tres. How can you miss that?
Notice that in an earlier post I put this into the same category as a father shaking his kid to death because it won't keep quiet. Not liking noisy kids is one thing. Hell, *I* don't like noisy kids. Killing them because of it is different.
Is anyone here pissed off because the parents believe in demons? I really don't think so. I know a lot of people who believe in demons, I am not angry at any of them. Well, until they start murdering people for it.
The demon bit makes the story intriguing, as in "Could your belief in demons ever be strong enough to cause you to murder children?" But I think people would react with just as much shock and anger if the parents had killed this girl because they hated the barney cartoon, or they were too drunk to feed her and she starved.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Slash, I think what was meant is that there is always the question of absolute versus relative morality, and it only becomes a truly difficult question at times like this. But still an important question, and a defensible position.
After all, isn't withholding medical care from a 6 year old with leukemia by her Christian Scientist parents in the same league as this? And there are people (not many, but extreme relativists and some other CScientists) who would defend their actions.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I disagree with that stand.
Withholding medical treatment could be considered wacky, and it can be dangerous. But it is a far cry from actively stabbing and strangling someone.
If I pass a wounded person in the street and don't help, there are crimes I can be convicted of, but none of them are murder.
It goes back to first cause.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
Gosh that's scary.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
The reality is, we as a society set up rules of behavior. Hopefully, most of them fall in line with the virtual morality most people practice. There will always be fringe groups that see things a little different, and that's fine.
But it goes back to net affect. When the net affect of a belief system, no matter how sincere, is this damaging to society as a group (murdering little girls falls into the extremely damaging to society category within our current system of law), then it can not be tolerated.
Sincere belief in an absolute morality that says otherwise is not even an issue.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Shrug. You're an absolutist, and you find it impossible to comprehend the relativists' side. That's fine.
But yah know, I think making a child suffer through advanced stages of cancer until they die is pretty darned bad.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
No, actually I am a relativist.
But we create virtual absolutes for ourselves, based on things that benefit society as a whole. Not murdering little girls is about as close to an absolute as we get. Just because I can *conceive* of a society in which murdering a little girl is considered moral and right, does not mean it has any place in our current reality.
Being a relativist does not automatically include seeing all views as equal. When the existence of demons is proven, and they are shown to be so dangerous that the only way to protect humanity at large is to kill those harboring them, then maybe we will need to revisit this issue. But we are a long way from that.
Heck, we don't even kill people who are PROVEN to be very dangerous to society at large. We tend to lock them up instead.
Like I said, this falls so far outside the allowed flexibility in our society, it's no even remotely arguable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Actually, I'm the absolutist here.
And yes Slash, I know the difference between trivial and non-trivial. The point is that, despite whatever some here may claim, they don't really believe in nonjudgementalism - at least not in serious matters. Everyone knows this is a case that calls for judgement, where it would be downright silly to say "well for me this is wrong, but for their religion it's right, so we'll just tolerate it and all be happy!" Complete tolerance is unacceptable in serious matters.
This is a point that should be remembered the next time some highly religious person confronts you, or calls you evil and wrong, or tries to convert you. Too often I hear people write such people off as intolerant, when the truth is that almost everyone is that intolerant. The difference is merely that they hold some things as serious that you don't. They believe the loss of a soul to Satan (or whatever) is as 'serious' a matter as the death of a kid, and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to think for someone who believes people of the wrong religion go to Hell. Don't go around hating such people for being 'intolerant' - after all, you too don't believe in tolerance in important matters. Hate them for having wrong beliefs about what is important if you want, but not for intolerance.
quote:Being a relativist does not automatically include seeing all views as equal.
Actually, it does. After all if some set of morality is in any objective way better than any other, you have created an objective bar against which to measure morality - an absolute. If not, then objectively they are all equally valid because there is no absolute against which to say one is any better than any other.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Belle, I didn't mean the sentiment -- I meant the words. "I might could have" is up there with "Wanna come with?" and "That bugs" in my book.
Tres, if one is a relativist, must one then consider absolutism as equally valid to relativism?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Is this thread really going to get sucked into a debate between absolutism vs. relativism?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I hope not, we've done it too recently. We need another term besides "relativism" to describe how judgment of an action requires acknowledgement of the conditions under which the act was committed. Apparently "relativism" means that all motivations must be considered valid, which is, frankly, stupid, and "absolutism" means that conditions make no difference at all in judging the act, which is dangerous.
[ January 21, 2004, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, if one is a relativist, must one then consider absolutism as equally valid to relativism?
Not if you're just a moral relativist, because absolutism and relativism are not moral rules - they are theories of morality. (If you are one of those metaphysical relativists who believes nothing whatsoever is any more true than anything else, then yeah, you would have to concede that I think.)
quote:Apparently "relativism" means that all motivations must be considered valid, which is, frankly, stupid, and "absolutism" means that conditions make no difference at all in judging the act, which is dangerous.
Neither of those is right (as indicated by the fact that both sound absurd when you put them like that....) Relativism means that two different people (or in some versions, two different cultures) can disagree over whether killing that kid was wrong and both be right for themselves. Absolutism means that if two different people (or cultures) disagree then one or the other is objectively (a.k.a. absolutely) wrong, and that there is some fixed, absolute, true-no-matter-what-anyone-believes answer to the question of whether or not it was right for those adults to kill that kid in tht situaiton.
[ January 21, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Doesn't the very inclusion of "in that situation" make judgment relative, though?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Relative to the situation, perhaps. But not relative to the person making the judgement. Just because a moral rule is "relative" to something doesn't make it relativist, any more than believing stuff exists makes you an existentialist.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So rather than a relativist, Slash would instead be a situational ethicist, or whatever permutation of the term denotes believer in situational ethics.
(I promise to move this to a separate thread if it continues, honest)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
No, I think Slash is a relativist, because I think he's said he CAN conceive of a society that believes killing this kid was right, and that in such a society it would be right, even while being wrong in our society. His point, if I am correct, is that although he can conceive of it, it is really irrelevant to us.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:We need another term besides "relativism" to describe how judgment of an action requires acknowledgement of the conditions under which the act was committed.
quote:In this engaging study, the authors put casuistry into its historical context, tracing the origin of moral reasoning in antiquity, its peak during the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, and its subsequent fall into disrepute from the mid-seventeenth century.
(Despite the title, the casuist approach is applicable to non-religious ethical debate as well.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Slash, dude, birth control in the air and water.
I know it's a dire response, but watching another videotape of a parent breaking her child's forearm on the side of his crib will set me in search of the nearest black hole, and how exactly to guide us into it.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
That poor baby! Slash, I totally agree. Some people should not be allowed to procreate.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)