Religion Kills Yet Another Child

[cleanhippie]

Marcell Washington put his 3-year-old son into a cold shower and demanded to know if the young boy worshiped only God.

When Ameen said "no," Washington forced open the boy's eyes so water could fill them.

"I did this because I wanted to kill the Shatan that I believed was in my son," Washington explained later. "I thought by killing a portion of Ameen, it would kill the Shatan in him."

The boy's frantic struggle convinced his father even more that "Shatan," or the devil, remained in him. The exorcism continued. Washington held his son's face under water for about 10 minutes.

"When I was holding him under the water Ameen was still fighting me really hard," Washington said later. "After about a couple of minutes Ameen stopped fighting so hard and he started to collapse. After ten minutes or so Ameen collapsed in my arms and I took him out of the shower."

The father wrapped his son in a white towel and put him in the bedroom. Foam was coming from the little boy's mouth, so Washington left him on his side for the foam to drain. Washington then went to shave his head. Afterward, he checked Ameen's pulse and found none. "I didn't think he was dead because the pulse of the Shatan is very hard to track," Washington said. "I then left Ameen at the house..."

--snip--

Police said Washington was highly upset and cried on multiple occasions before being interrogated. But Washington expressed no regret and told officers he would have done it all over again, according to statements. “He stated that he did not feel he did anything wrong,” one officer wrote. “He also said that his child was better off dead than living with a devil inside of him.”

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/syracuse_murder_exorcism_marcell_washington.html

Not religion but mental illness, you say? It can be difficult to tell them apart.

[trotsky]

1. We have been told repeatedly in this very group...

that we cannot tell someone their religious beliefs are wrong unless we can PROVE they are wrong.

I cannot prove his child was NOT possessed by a devil. I can only say that science shows such a thing is impossible, but as I've been told, science is based on faith, and just "another way of knowing," so there we are.

[cleanhippie]

3. Sounds about right

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. Nor can we prove that demons and exorcisms were discussed at the man's church...

...so obviously, this whole thing has nothing to do with religion. Or so we've been told, anyway.

[trotsky]

17. Right, and we only have the police report documenting the man's claims.

The police, after all, could be a bunch of anti-religious bigots who are making it all up to try and discredit religion.

[rug]

2. Marcell Washington killed his 3-year-old child.

Go run with it.

[Brettongarcia]

43. Better to ignore this, and its religious basis? Never happened? In Psych, that's called "Denial"

Religion as it turns out, runs on Denial. And censorship of facts. Burning the books - and people - it doesn't like, or can't face.

By the way, the really popular recent video about a Florida woman trying to drive her van - and children - into the sea, turns out to be religious too. The lady was talking about Jesus, and demons in the house. Just before this lady drove her van and children into the ocean. "Our mom is trying to kill us" the kids cried.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/minivan-mom-case/our-mom-trying-kill-us-hero-recounts-ocean-rescue-n44731

But we should never speak of such things? Or make the link to religion.

Such things are distasteful, facile, exploitative, and heretical?

[rug]

56. "This" has a name. It's Ameen Washington.

The denial here is indeed rampant.

[Feral Child]

102. The denial here is indeed rampant.

Who is in denial, rug?

Ameen Washington is dead because of religion.

Do you deny "this"?

[rug]

106. Of course I do. Do you also think schizophrenia kills people?

In your eagerness to blame religion for this killing you gleefully ignore obvious facts.

The evidence is all over.

[Feral Child]

128. I don't answer deflecting questions.

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you a psychiatrist?

Or just one of the faithful that refuses to acknowledge that religion sometimes causes horrific evil?

[cleanhippie]

136. And BOOM goes the dynamite.

[Feral Child]

137. Thanks, cleanhippie.

[rug]

143. Making eye contact with adults while dressed as a clown is risky. - Douglas Coupland

[Feral Child]

146. I live for that risk, rugdude.

It's the big shoes that fuck me up.

[rug]

142. A firecracker is dynamite to an ant.

[rug]

141. You don't answer uncomfortable questions.

Do you think you're under oath?

Or are you just one of the righteous that refuses to acknowledge that this death is the result of mental illness?

I'll tell you this: Weak insults do nothing to avoid the question you haven't answered.

[Feral Child]

147. You asked me to diagnose

a person for mental illness. Not only am I not qualified, the question was a deflection designed to put me on the defensive.

I'll admit to being offensive, but never defensive.

You also failed to answer a question: are you qualified to diagnose mental illness? Was that what insulted you? Or did you again concentrate on attack, hoping in vain to rout me? Thing is, you're no more qualified to make the distinction than I am.

Let me answer your original question with a query designed to redirect your deflection: do you think that schizophrenics are incapable of believing in God?


I may have time for one more riposte, depending on how soon you can get back to me. Sorry, but the dogs are puppy-eyed; they need dinner and walkies.

[rug]

149. No, I didn't. His illness has already been diagnosed and his history reported..

The question was: Do you also think schizophrenia kills people?

You didn't ask me a question, but I'll answer it. I am not qualified to diagnose mental illness nor did I. But I'm not driven to ignore a fact: he is, as has been reported in every story on his son's death. I prefer that to leaping on a religious tangent like a starving dog on raw liver. You may prefer otherwise.

I'll answer your other question as well, inapt as it is. Of course schizophrenics can, and do, believe in God. Some compose symphonies and some engage insightfully in higher mathematics. What is inapt in your question is that they can do neither while in a psychotic state any more than an epileptic neurosurgeon can perform brain surgery while having a grand mal seizure.

BTW, I didn't say I was insulted; I said you were insulting.

[Feral Child]

154. Lovely metaphor.

A bit heavy-handed, though. Perhaps it's merely that you misunderstand me.

I have no delusion of being able to repress religion, the pathetic need for it is so ingrained in human pathology that it's irresolvable.

I'm not a Quixote, more a Panza counterpointing the ludicrousness of human frailty; hence, no dog devouring organ meats, rather a canny feline toying with an obviously damaged rodent.

You finally answered a pertinent question: schizophrenics can believe in God; now, the follow-up: is Religious Ecstasy recognizably different than schizophrenia?

"Visions", disembodied audio disturbances that no one else discerns, an absolute belief in the infallibility of one's delusions, an inability to recognize the difference between what appears to be and what is, lack of impulse control: which am I describing? I posit that there is no quantifiable difference between religious fervor and any other mental illness.

Further, chicken/egg? Can anyone state, unequivocally, that this monster's aberrations were not caused by his religious beliefs rather than an unbalanced mind accepting too literally the fantasies induced by religion?

Re: insulted/insulting. I fail to see a difference. If you are not insulted it's difficult to believe that my statements were insulting. One state of being is predicated by the other.

More importantly, you've once again failed to address my concern. What "insulting" statement by me (that failed to leave you insulted) are you referencing? Was it my query about your medical credentials? That would seem an innocent question in light of your assertion that this particular act of brutality was driven by a medical condition rather than his beliefs (even though his actions are directly attributable to a belief in "Shatan&quot . Seriously, not all schizophrenics believe in the devil. For that matter, schizophrenia is infrequently manifested in violence to others.

Or was it my supposition that you might be influenced by your own faith? Is it the phrase "the faithful" that you find offensive (even though you remain un-offended)? Had I intended that to be insulting I would have emphasized it, perhaps capitalizing the word and typing it in Italics; thus, the Faithful. Even better, to borrow from my father, the Saved Ones.

I think you're over reacting. I think part of that is the gusto you enjoy sparring with someone that can recognize your metaphors and part of it is an obstinate defense of an institution you find morally acceptable despite it's obvious and tragic flaws.

CAVEAT: This is a rare Saturday morning appearance on the DU, driven in part by my own enjoyment in fencing with a worthy opponent, and partly by the wriggling of the mousie. To the point, I won't be able to rebut your reply until Monday morn. I only allot a small portion of my time to being an E-insulting guy.

[rug]

156. Lots of words and still no answer to a simple question.

Are you afraid to answer?

I'll answer yours, ignoring its irrelevance to this thread as ecstasy is a rare occurrence in religious experience. Of course religious ecstasy is recognizably different from schizophrenia. You can start with William James and move on to the DSM. That question bears the traits of a mind unused to observation, nuance and bias-free inquiry.

As an example, you don't see the distinction between insulting and insulted. While you look for it, I'll consider what other odia is in the mind of someone calling this severely ill human being a "monster".

Don't let me keep you from your errands. I may make a comparison to the White Rabbit. "Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!"

[Feral Child]

189. Please, rug.

Your Carrol reference is entirely misplaced. It isn't "chores" that keep me from DU weekends and evenings, it's life. Arguments in this forum aren't going to resolve anything, this is mostly entertainment. When something more fun comes along, I don't drag my feet.

I will never be one of those frantic posters so emotionally involved that I can't walk away from a silly discussion. And this has indeed become silly.

Also, despite it's inappropriateness, your attempt at insult is merely trite. Surely you can find an allusion with a bit more flair. Kafka, perhaps.

See, there can't be insult unless I'm insulted (and you'll need to try a lot harder to draw blood, or to appear intellectual.) You attempted an insult and failed; hence, you are not insulting, merely ineffectual.



Point of fact, you are indeed one of the faithful and, as such, are incapable of having a rational discussion.

As an example, you don't see that the distinction between "ecstasy" and "schizophrenia" is moot: both are aberrant views of reality. BTW, they are not mutually exclusive.

Was Joan schizophrenic or suffering from religious delusion? Truth is, it doesn't matter a bit. Some other mentally-ill fanatics set her on fire for not believing their version of Christian mythology, and apparently "God" didn't care.

Try to have a nice day, rug. Maybe some prayer will ease your frustration. In fact, you should pray for my soul. It'll make you feel better about yourself, and it sure as hell won't make any difference to me.

[Feral Child]

195. A public apology to rug.

I get vehement. It's a character flaw.

I shouldn't have let this get so far. It began as ribbing and ended up picking at scabs.

I'm trying to be less abrasive, often I will fail.

Peace and Respect.

[Brettongarcia]

170. Can you link to reportage of accused's formal diagnosis of "schizophreia"?

I can't find it in existing reportage. He's been under "observation" for years. But no mental diagnosis reported to the press, as it seems in a quick search.

[rug]

178. It's in his competency evaluations.

You do realize this happened more than two years ago? I guess the OP was napping that day.

From the original link:

The father was indicted last month on felony murder. The process was delayed by a lengthy mental health evaluation, said his lawyer, Thomas Ryan.

The reports themselves are not in the public record pursuant to Section 730 of New York's Criminal Procedure Law but I expect the transcripts of the psychiatrists' (there must be at least two examiners) testimony at the competency hearings are replete not only with his diagnoses but his symptoms.

From reporting at the time:

Three days before police say he drowned his 3-year-old son, Marcell Washington texted his girlfriend to ask if she ever heard voices.

“Do people talk to u?” he asked while riding a bus Nov. 2.

Enida Ibrahimovic, who had been dating Washington for about two months, thought it was an odd question. Maybe he was referring to fellow passengers. She texted back:

“What do u mean do ppl talk to me?”

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/troubled_syracuse_man_left_few.html

By the way, these are the human beings we're talking about:

[Brettongarcia]

180. So no formal evaluation released. But? The court found enough to indict for "Felony Murder"

Which implies culpability.

Which excludes any clear diagnosis of full formal schizophrenia.

[rug]

181. The Grand Jury indicts, not the Court.

I don't understand the felony murder charge. That's for a homicide committed while committing a separate felony. That doesn't seem to fit the facts. I bet there is a second degree murder count on the indictment.

Culpability, the mens rea or guilty mind, is an element of every crime that the prosecution must prove.

Insanity, on the other hand, is an affirmative defense. The defendant has the burden of making a prima facie case for insanity whereupon the burden shifts back to the prosecution which must disprove that defense beyond a reasonable defense.

In New York it's called the Not Responsible defense.

New York Penal LawSection 40.15: Mental disease or defect

In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong.

[Brettongarcia]

182. Second Degree was mentioned.

[struggle4progress]

184. ... Washington was arraigned for second degree murder. He entered a not guilty plea ...

Syracuse man accused of drowning his son arraigned
03/11/2014 09:38 AM
03/11/2014 12:56 PM

[rug]

188. That will change when they give the prosecutor notice of a psychiatric defense.

New York has three pleas: Not Guilty, Guilty, and Not Responsible.

http://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article220.htm#c220.10

[hrmjustin]

115. He is dead because his father was mentally ill

[Brettongarcia]

130. Schizophrenia often takes religious form; the accused is not schizophrenic as of arrest

In my last search, the accused HAS NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AS MENTALLY ILL!

He was arrested for "Murder"; and assumed to be culpable.

Does anyone have other information on a formal diagnosis?

Or are you diagnosing him yourself on hearsay or personal preference?

[Brettongarcia]

132. To refer to "this" event, this murder, puts down Ameen Washington?!?!

Wow!

Deliberate misunderstanding to avoid a point that troubles you, is a major characteristic of Denial.

[rug]

144. Do you actually think this was posted to mourn Ameen Washington?

Deliberate misunderstanding is a major characteristic of Denial.

Another is fear.

[Brettongarcia]

155. It's a legitimate warning about abuses in religious base. Today, lesser but important abuses continu

In part it IS mourning a person killed by religion.

Then too? We want to cite his example, as a cautionary tale for believers. To help prevent future abuse.

It is immoral not to see such evil. And not to warn others; to try to save them from similar abuses.

Those who repress or censor such information, are not the good people they pretend to be. Or vainly think that they are.

We need to make sure this poor child did not die in vain; let his death serve to inform the public, and end religious abuse.

[hrmjustin]

114. First of all I never seen a religious friend of mine burn any book. Denial I don't kn8w what you

mean.

Do you agree that most religious people don't do this?

[Brettongarcia]

131. 1) History says religions often censored, burned books - and people - they thought were "heretical"

2) As recently as 1960 some libraries banned irreligious or religiously "immoral" books.

3) In my own recent experience, 2014, most religious blogs will often not allow remarks that effectively note problems with religion.

This is religious censorship.

4) In Psychology, it is called Denial. Psychology tells us that many people have a psychological inability to look at ideas, even facts, that contract their beliefs. They will blank out real events from their minds, etc.. Sometimes their minds will not even register things that trouble them a great deal; they will "repress" the memory. The Bible said that many believers are "blind"; they will literally not even see some things; the sight of troubling things will not register in their minds.

5) Or if they are conscious of the problem, they will anxiously try to "rationalize" it by specious arguments.

6) That seems to be what we are seeing with religious believers on the present blog, who refuse to see the role of religion in religious murders.

Look up Denial, and Rationalization.

[hrmjustin]

135. So this all means what to you.

[hrmjustin]

138. Well I don't burn books and neitger does my church.

[Brettongarcia]

157. This death should serve to warn others. But many still ridicule or censor such stories

Classic religious censorship is not just a thing of the past, from the days when books were burned.

Religious censorship is still in force on many blogs.

[hrmjustin]

158. Where do you see religious censorship in the US?

I ask because I have never experienced this.

[Brettongarcia]

160. Learn to see it. Even a blog like this one, is "protected"; Fundamentalists are excluded

IN this case, I don't mind too much.

But to be sure, right here and now, even on this very blog, we live in a censored world.

[hrmjustin]

161. You mean DU? There are terms of service to this site we agreed to.

I am sorry but in this nation religious censorship is just not that common anymore.

[Brettongarcia]

163. Our "terms of service" amount to a kind of (albeit sometimes useful) religious censorship

Still, "A rose by any other name" should still make us sneeze. Those of us who are allergic to flowers.

Don't play semantic games; that's the worst and most common sophistry of Religion in general.

Deep down, you know better.

Right?

Religious censorship is EVERYWHERE. Especially in the media.

[hrmjustin]

164. The terms of service of this site leads to religious censorship?

[Brettongarcia]

165. People in denial often use logic & word games; in this case a "Distinction Without a Difference"

Personally I don't always mind this particular example. But often the terms of service of religious blogs and web sites say, exclude/censor certain kinds of religious expression.

Read terms of service. Note the difference between a "forum," and a group and so forth. Some of them allow like-minded persons only; or exclude certain kinds of dissenters.

When I used to call up Right Wing Radio, conservative religious shows like EWTN/RN, if I said the kind of thing that ideologically offended their conservative theology, I was off the air.

Censorship is everywhere.

[hrmjustin]

166. Well on this site they try to keep discussion of the validity of religious belief orr non belief in

the religion groups. In the forums it has to be big news or have a political aspect to it.


Censorship is everywhere but private entities can do this. But I still haven't seen burning of the books.

Also my church would never tell me what I can and can not read.

[rug]

167. Jesus is still here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=106293

So is Zoroaster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=128037

[hrmjustin]

168. .

[Brettongarcia]

173. RUG: When you lose an argument, always divert attention, change the subject. Another Denial.

Religious censorship is everywhere. Learn to see it. In our own posts, then on DU for that matter.

Look at the top of the page, right here. The religion discussion page on DU.

What does it say, even in purple letters? How do you read this:

"This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here."

Religious censorship is everywhere. And your changing the subject when the facts creep up on you, is just yet another form of evasion, denial, suppression.

[rug]

174. Lol!

Brettongarcia is still here

[hrmjustin]

187. Safe havens are for certain groups to talk about their interests.

[elehhhhna]

183. examples of relifious censorship in the media please?

not sure what you're getting at

[Brettongarcia]

185. There are degrees of religious bias, censorship, in most media.

1) Particularly striking are individual churches; where only one denominational voice is allowed from the pulpit.

2) Similar constraints exist in special interest media organizations, like EWTN/RN.

3) Many seminaries stress one denominational view ... and suppress others.

4) SPECIFIC EXAMPLE? Even major media, TV networks, are pressured by various religions. Who call advertisers and pressure them to drop sponsorship of programs they don't like. You can't really call Christianity "Satanic" say, and expect major networks to carry what you say. Or in the 80's, oppose "family values," often.

5) In general society too, one can criticize religion; but expect some blowback, even violence, in some venues.

6) Often the subject of religion is barely mentioned in public schools; where it would be an explosive issue.

So what is going on? Technically in America we have "freedom of religion"; including freedom to criticize religion. But for various reasons that freedom cannot be exercised. Not in many, many venues. Especially many of those most central to disseminating religious information. Even a rather open forum like the DU religious section, has certain constraints imposed on it.

What is the significance of this? It means that it is surprisingly hard to get an objective look at religion. Or to get the word out, when religion - or in American especially, Christianity - does something wrong.

To be sure American society today is far less censored today than it was in the past; when "heretics" were jailed, tortured, and killed. But the point here would be that there is still way too much censorship of religious criticism in MANY key venues.

While the larger point here is that censorship is in effect, very much like - or indeed part of - the Psychological phenomenon of "Denial." Both mechanisms are designed to suppress opposing information. In this case, bad news on religion. And finally? To the extent that there is still significant censorship of religious criticism, a sort of massive Denial remains characteristic of say, American Culture or society.

Fair assessments and objectivity are hard to achieve in this climate.

To be sure, today there are many more forums today where religion is being examined more critically/objectively at last. However? The voice of critical perspective is still somewhat restricted. And psychological Denial of negative information is still all too easy for many to accomplish.

[Scuba]

4. Incredibly sad.

[cleanhippie]

5. Indeed. Another needless religiously associated death.

[struggle4progress]

63. Do you have any profound thoughts concerning why his psych evaluation that lasted two years

and involved medication?

[cleanhippie]

66. Google didn't return anything?

[struggle4progress]

70. Well, I did find this: "Internet trolls are sadistic, narcissistic and psychopathic"

A Canadian study has finally confirmed what many have suspected for a long time ... The results showed that most people only read online discussions without taking part in them. The five per cent of the respondents who were classified as trolls also received the highest scores for sadistic, psychopathic, narcissistic and Machiavellian characteristics ...

[Goblinmonger]

72. Of course there is the argument that those that rely solely on the internet

and perform a lot of quick searches are losing the ability for deep thinking.

Since we are just throwing out "random" thoughts.

[rug]

86. It left out "disruptive", no matter how poorly done.

[Dorian Gray]

6. Horrible way for a child

to die. Horrible.

[cleanhippie]

18. I agree. Being drowned is horrific, but adding the totally preventable religious motivation

Is even worse

[Dorian Gray]

22. Sometimes

people who are crazy see what they want to see and do crazy things. It's possible he had religious provocation. It's also possible he came up and twisted things in his own warped mind to end up doing what he did.

In the end, a child died. He needs to be remembered. And the father needs to go to jail for a long period of time.

[Warpy]

82. Jail or a ward for the criminally insane

depending on what the psychologists find out about him. He might just be a true believer. Or he might be one of those crazy people for whom the voices in his head are the acceptable angels and demons instead of just ordinary schizophrenic chatter.

Secular schizophrenics attribute their hallucinations to the government or animals or radio waves. Religious schizophrenics see theirs as angels and demons. The latter are usually much sicker because religious people tend to reinforce the nuttiness.

If I had to guess, I'd say the guy is nuts. The worst punishment would be a nice hospital ward where they would give him medications to make the voices go away and he'd realize what he had done.

That poor little boy.

[Dorian Gray]

126. I agree with all this

And a hospital ward might be very necessary if he's found insane.

[cleanhippie]

83. I agree, but you seem to dismiss the religious motivation attached to it.

ActofReperations post above touches on this, empirically.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=117105

[Dorian Gray]

127. I understand

that he may have truly believed that the only way to save the boy was to drown him. If he did truly believe that, I think he was insane. Perpetuated/reinforced by his religious beliefs? Sure. But his religious beliefs were warped beyond what is the social norm due to insanity.

And the result is that a boy died. I don't need to fight anymore about this. I'm truly horrified for that child and what he went through in the last moments of his life. (And probably days/months/etc. if his father truly believed what he was spewing to the police.)

[Warren Stupidity]

7. You can tell the difference: the exact same delusional beliefs are either

perfectly sane deeply held religious convictions, or psychotic depending on the state of the child: if the child dies during an exorcism, it is psychotic, if the child doesn't die, it is a harmless and widely held religious conviction.

It is Schrodinger's cat, only for woo.

[cleanhippie]

8. Makes perfect sense, if you read the responses in the religion=mental illness thread.

[skepticscott]

20. None of the authors of which

have dared to weigh in here.

Any time a thread in Religion drags on that long, it's a good sign that a very sensitive nerve has been struck in the religionists and their apologists and appeasers.

[cleanhippie]

67. As with all things religious, when facts come out, apologists scatter like cockroaches

When the light comes on.

There's a reason Sagan used the Candle in the Dark metaphor.

[rug]

88. That's odd. Your posts seem to attract its own.

[cleanhippie]

90. As evidenced by your arrival

So are you now just stalking all my responses to other posters?

No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.

[rug]

94. When one smells something foul, it is necessary to find the source.

[cleanhippie]

98. Have you tried brushing your teeth?

[rug]

101. That comment just about summarizes this thread.

Ah, Reason!

[el_bryanto]

9. What a well reasoned argument.

After an argument like that, anybody who suggests that some DU anti-theists might be bigoted would have to be mentally ill.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

10. *Yawn*

Get a new shtick, this one is played out.

[cleanhippie]

12. Considering that all of that came from your imagination, the fantasy is all yours.

Seriously man, your passive-aggressive bullshit is tired and played out. Please, just stop or put me on ignore, either way I don't care.

[el_bryanto]

13. Nah - i'm not going to be doing that as long as you post such bullshit.

Why would I?

What exactly is your argument here - Religion kills Kids? That's the title of your OP isn't it? Religion Kills Yet Another Child

So how guilty should I be as a believer for this kids death?

There's a reason you want me to shut up; because you know your Anti-Theist Bigotry BS can't stand much scrutiny.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

15. Well, I asked nicely, and you refused, so a jury shut you up for good.

You have a nice day now, ya hear?

[Jokerman]

16. Looks like your personal attack couldn't stand the scrutiny of a DU jury.

I am baffled by the lone juror who wanted to let it stand.

[skepticscott]

19. BTW, this is just the latest example

of you defending the worst sins and abuses of religion, by viciously attacking those who point them out. I'm sure there will be more.

And you're getting more civil and courteous about it every day. Did you learn that from your mentor?

But don't forget, god loves you, no matter how many people you call a bigot.

[rug]

21. Well, this has gone about as well as you expected.

I can't wait for your next attempt to use a toddler's death by disturbed parent as a triumphal commentary on religion.

This is your, what, sixth attempt?

[okasha]

25. The gloating makes my skin crawl.

NT

[rug]

26. What does it take to make Ameen Washington a footnote in the story of his own death?

No need to answer, it's evident.

[okasha]

30. "A footnote" puts it perfectly.

I get the sense that the child himself doesn't matter at all, only the narrative that can be constructed around him. Religion kills far fewer children than alcohol or unaddressed anger management problems. You'd never know it from the posts in this group, though.

[cleanhippie]

50. This isn't the alcohol or anger management group, it's the Religion group

You know, where religious topics are discussed. You can read all about it in the Statement of Purpose by clicking the About This Group tab above.

You have a nice day.

[rug]

59. Yes, it's not the dead toddler group.

[cleanhippie]

68. Should we rename it the Dead Toddler Killed By Religious Wingnut Group?

Although not all killed by religious wingnuts are toddlers, so something more apropos perhaps?

[rug]

73. No. How about the Playpen Group?

We can juggle dead babies and crosses for the amusement of those who blur distinctions.

[cleanhippie]

77. Sounds like The Lounge, which we already have.

Besides, I prefer bowling balls and chainsaws when I juggle.

[rug]

80. The Lounge has more class and honesty than this thread.

Case in point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018587799

[cleanhippie]

85. Yet here you are...

[rug]

89. I have boots to wade through the horseshit on my way to the rational threads.

[cleanhippie]

91. Riiiggghhht.

[rug]

95. Careful there, let me just take a step.

[Brettongarcia]

172. Here, a religious father killed an atheist child. Nobody noticed? Because he was a nonbeliever.

Washington's 3-year-old son would not say that he believed in God, the report says. That is why is father killed him.

His father stated that it would be better for his son to die than live as an unbeliever.

So it's just another murder of a young atheist, by a religious believer.

Nobody even noticed it seems.

[okasha]

74. Anf you have a safe haven group

where you can indulge yourself without anyone challenging your use of a terrible tragedy to polish your self satisfaction.

Here, expect to be called on your BS.

[cleanhippie]

75. Anytime you want to respond with something of substance, I'll be here.

Until you do, your projection is noted.

[rug]

84. You confuse projection with reflection.

[cleanhippie]

87. If by reflection, she is looking in a mirror, I would agree.

The only confusion here seems to be yours.


Now comes the part where you sling another thinly veiled insult at me and I don't respond.

[rug]

92. Then you wouldn't agree.

[mr blur]

57. You two should just move in together -

It would make the mutual admiration society much easier to run and keep you away from normal folks.

[rug]

58. Talking to you feels like I'm already there.

[hrmjustin]

116. What do you mean by normal folks?

[rug]

60. Hey okasha, do you know where the normal people hang out?

Is there a safe haven for that?

[okasha]

81. iNo safe haven for "normal folks" on DU,

at least, not if you define "normal folks" to include. those of us who are disgusted by the use of a child"s death to propagate hate annd polish egos.

I suspect mr. blur's definitions are a bit hazy in any case.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. In dealing with heretics and demons, some believers are more zealous than others.

Still, if we examine the history of the Church and the tactics used to establish and maintain power, this incident maybe wouldn't seem so "deranged". It sort of fits the narrative.

If you can't save them, kill them. After you torture them.

[hrmjustin]

24. Sad story.

[dem in texas]

27. What are you talking about - the child's death was caused by untreated mental illness

I am a fan of some of these conservative religions, but reading what this man did clearly shows he was delusional and a very sick man. Many people who are mentally ill will focus on religious themes, but this is not a real feeling of religious beliefs, but a symptom of their illness.

[dem in texas]

28. Correction to post above - I am NOT a fan of conservative religions,

Whoops, left out am important little work - not - in my post.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. many religions teach that demonic possession is real.

these teachings help reinforce delusional beliefs (and in fact are indistinguishable from delusional beliefs). Religion may not have directly caused this man's psychotic behavior, but it helped create a social reality that normalizes these sorts of beliefs and in doing so must share some responsibility for the consequences.

[rug]

32. Any scientist will tell you the etiology of mental illnness lies in the human body not beliefs.

[Brettongarcia]

45. Not exactly. The body and the mind effect each other. Ideas effect mental state, and bodily state

It is a common opinion today that mental illness is solely from brain chemistry and bodily states. But I often say that is not quite right; often it goes the other way: our mind influence our body. Example: If your mind has a sensation of fear, for example, your bodily heart can beat faster. Long term, your mental anxiety and stress can cause bodily deterioration.

So the body effects the mind - but the mind also effects the body. And so I suggest therefore that chemical imbalances in the brain could be caused in part, by our thoughts and ideas. As much as vice-versa.

The current notion that all of psychology can be explained by brain chemistry and fixed by psychotropic drugs, I feel, is not quite right. In fact this popular notion was lampooned long ago, with reference to "soma," and drugging the population into complacency. Cf. Brave New World, 1984, etc.. Some of these "fictional books" were written with knowledge of Psych; Orwell studied for an MA in Psych.; Huxley was married to a psychologist. All were warning about a therapeutically drugged society.

Freud and others of course felt that many forms of mental illness were in fact not caused by body chemistry, but by confused thinking. (Indeed, all of religion seems to feel similarly; we can be talked out of bad thinking).

Both traditional Psychology and religion feel that changing our thinking, can fix our minds. Not just popping pills.

And so conversation, exchanging ideas, can help.

[rug]

55. If you think abstract ideas cause mental illness you're peddling woo.

[Brettongarcia]

159. Mental ideas, talking, effect mental health. Said Freud. And much of Psychology.

That is why talking to people about issues, is important.

To this day much of Psychology - and religion - works on the idea that aside from medication, talking to people about their behavior - and thus influencing their behavior and mental health - is extremely important.

Psychotherapy is not JUST about popping pills to effect brain states. Both Orwell and Huxley warned about that. Though that misconception seems to prevail in much of society today.

[struggle4progress]

36. I think I might willingly describe the drowning of a three-year old as a demonic act

I also note that this incident seems in some ways to support the demonological theory I posted in this group only a few weeks back -- a theory which IMO does not depend on whether we think demons exist or not but depends rather on whether or not we believe in demons:

... It is common for people to think they can address other people's demons. This, however, is not true: we can only actually address our own. The relation between a demon and its prey is individual, and the only person who can stop feeding a particular demon is the person who is feeding it. We may, nevertheless, more often see demons in others than in ourselves, for various reasons. One reason is that our own demons may damage our discernment so that, when we notice one of our own demons, we are misled into thinking we are noticing someone else's demon; another reason is that our own demons may encourage us to notice the demons that others are feeding so that we overlook the demons we ourselves are feeding ...

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Look, you are engaged in equivocation.

Either you believe that there exist supernatural beings "demons" that can invade and possess a human being, or you don't. If you choose to use a different meaning for the term "demon" one that does not require the existence of supernatural beings, but instead seems to overlap entirely with "mental illness", that is fine. If your "demons" have agency then you are talking about the former. And again, supporting this sort of thinking, even if you want to couch it in nuance, helps to create a society in which mentally ill people act out on their delusional belief that demons are real.

[struggle4progress]

42. "Equivocation" (as logical fallacy) does not consist (as you suppose) of using a word

in an unfamiliar or nonstandard way, but of changing the meaning of the word in mid-argument

Here is an example. It is standard logic that if one can show that a sentence P(x) holds for arbitrary x, then one can conclude "P(x) holds for all x." Consider then the following argument: A just government is not arbitrary; and so an arbitrary government is unjust; therefore every government is unjust. This is an equivocation because the meaning of "arbitrary" has been changed, between the first sentence of the argument and the application of the final reasoning rule.

I did not equivocate: I simply assumed that "to think demons exist" is not at all the same thing as "to believe in demons." If this does not accord with your usages of the words, then I can only urge you to consider that a word such as "exist" actually means many different things, and that I therefore find it useful to distinguish between the things that I think exist and the things that I believe in -- since I would indeed be likely to fall into some equivocation were I to fail to make the distinction

[Warren Stupidity]

44. "misleading use of a term with more than one meaning".

Equivocation ("to call by the same name&quot is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

[struggle4progress]

124. Then point out exactly which word I misleadingly used twice with different meanings

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. I think 'bullshitting' may be a more succinct term for your posts on this

I think you post to obscure the discussion, and to draw attention away from the religions that actively encourage people to believe in demons. As an example, your continued BS of " I simply assumed that "to think demons exist" is not at all the same thing as "to believe in demons." You say you think (you have said 'of course') there is a difference between these, but have not explained what you think the difference is. I think this is an attempt to muddy the waters, so that when someone talks about the existence of demons, you fall back on 'belief', and vice versa.

[struggle4progress]

64. So you dislike describing the drowning of a three-year old as "demonic"

My thesaurus lists among its various synonyms: maniacal, crazed, infernal, bad, frenzied, insane, violent, wicked, and aroused

But you're certainly welcome to use whatever adjectives you prefer

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. This shows, again, how you want to divert from religion as the subject

This is not about whether someone considers the killing 'demonic'; it's about the man's belief in demons, and "demonic possession" of his son. Your thesaurus won't have "maniacal/crazed/bad/frenzied/insane/violent/wicked/aroused possession" in it. It might stretch to "infernal possession". He believed 'Shatan' was possessing his son. Coming up with synonyms to describe the drowning is a red herring. We can see that religious thoughts were driving him:

Knight, too, said Washington acted strangely the night before and the day of Ameen’s death. The three men were Muslims and often discussed their religion, but on Friday and Saturday, Knight said, “it was like Marcell was trying to shove it down our throats.

“He was being really aggressive about it,” Knight recalled. “On Saturday, Mubarak was in the shower and (Washington) was knocking on the door saying, ‘You need to come make prayer.’”
...
Washington, Knight recalled, “started acting all weird. He was reciting stuff in Arabic and he was just blabbering on. I was looking at his face and he just wasn’t there.”

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/troubled_syracuse_man_left_few.html

[struggle4progress]

105. Your excerpt doesn't seem to me to support your analysis

[struggle4progress]

123. It is one thing to say "I think democracy exists" and rather another to say "I believe in democracy"

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Language is always imprecise, because the world consists of a number of particulars, which outnumber the words available for describing those particulars; and this fact is true a fortiori if one wishes to discuss psychological phenomena

If you can make absolutely no sense of a statement such as We .. more often see demons in others than in ourselves ... One reason is that our own demons may damage our discernment so that, when we notice one of our own demons, we are misled into thinking we are noticing someone else's demon; another reason is that our own demons may encourage us to notice the demons that others are feeding so that we overlook the demons we ourselves are feeding ... without assuming that such a statement cannot be parsed without assuming "demons exist," I necessarily suspect a certain lack of imagination on your part, since it seems to me an entirely legitimate comment on the story in the OP

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. more equivocation on your part - "believing in democracy" is about thinking it a Good Thing

that can achieve desired outcomes. No-one says "I believe in demons" to mean "demons are a good thing that I support". You are using a meaning of 'believe in' in the wrong context. And you know you are, but are doing it to obfuscate. You are trying to use language more imprecisely, because you want to divert attention from the father believing his son was possessed - because he had been fed stories that possession by demons are true, by his religion.

The father though a demon, a separate entity - 'Shatan', the devil - had possessed his son, and so he tortured his son and killed him, in the belief that the torture would cause Shatan to leave his son. This was based on religious beliefs - even if he had to be mentally ill to fully believe the dangerous nonsense that religion had fed him, and come up with physical torture as the 'cure'.

[struggle4progress]

152. No, equivocation is the changing of the meaning of a term in the course of an argument:

(1) Posters will fall off the wall unless firmly attached with pushpins;
(2) Some posters at DU are off the wall;
(3) Therefore, some posters at DU need to be firmly attached with pushpins

illustrates equivocation

[muriel_volestrangler]

153. You are arguing that "believing in demons" is like "believing in democracy"

but also like "thinking demons exist".
OED - equivocation:
"The use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification, with a view to mislead; esp. the expression of a virtual falsehood in the form of a proposition which (in order to satisfy the speaker's conscience) is verbally true."

[bravenak]

29. It might be both.

A whole lot of both.

[struggle4progress]

33. "... mental health experts .. said Washington's symptoms sounded like schizophrenia ..."

from the link in the OP

[okasha]

34. Now, now.

You're throwing the OP's whole narrative off track by suggesting there was a physical, medical cause for this man's behavior.

[struggle4progress]

37. Shame on me for actually following the link in the OP to read what was written there

[okasha]

38. You know you weren't supposed to do that.

[trotsky]

41. And there very well could be.

But you can't prove he wasn't following his deeply-held religious beliefs.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Please explain the litmus test to tell the difference.

I think you really don't understand the narrative of the OP. Abraham is used as an example of someone good who follows the word of god. He would have killed his son.

[skepticscott]

39. There must also be a lot of incidents

of atheists and Unitarian Universalists killing their children in the process of trying to purge them of what they believe to be demonic possession, right? Or perhaps atheists are killing their children in trying to purge them of possession by Richard Dawkins?

I'm sure another Google search will yield that information..

[struggle4progress]

62. I'm unaware of any reliable source of statistics that could illuminate your claim

[skepticscott]

97. You worked all day on that, eh?

It might even make a tiny smidgen of sense if statistics were the only thing that could be brought to bear on it.

Google harder.

[struggle4progress]

120. On average, over a recent multi-decade period, eight (8) children per day were killed by a parent

in the US -- around 3000 per year. The numbers are large enough for the issue to have attracted considerable research interest over an extended time, and quite a lot seems to be known about various ways to meaningfully classify the data. If this topic actually interests you, why not find out what people think they know about it so far?

[phil89]

93. Interesting point.

I wonder if there are?

[skepticscott]

99. You can be reasonably sure that if there were

at least one of the many posters here whose life consists mainly of trolling the internet all day looking for that sort of thing would have found them by now, and presented them in gleeful triumph. I wouldn't be surprised if there are one or two searching desperately right now. Best thing for them, really.

[rug]

96. Does Schizophrenia have adult or infant baptism?

Are there any dietary laws?

[struggle4progress]

109. IIRC the Church of Schizophrenia has a very individualistic creed, allowing

great latitude for personal idiosyncracies and very encouraging to notions held by no one other than the adherent

[rug]

110. Is it a branch of the Unitarians?

I always thought it was like the Presbyterians.

[struggle4progress]

118. I'm sure I wouldn't know

[Brettongarcia]

171. Experts, who had not examined Washington, said it "sounds like" schizophrenia?

And everyone jumps in to say this is definitive? Yikes.

[struggle4progress]

176. And then there are the claims that "religion is indistinguishable from psychopathology!"

from various peanut gallery geniuses who themselves seem to lack any first-hand knowledge of the case; see (say) #162

I am, of course, much encouraged by the possibility that you might adopt the view that individual cases are to be judged only after careful determination of factual details

[struggle4progress]

35. Lawyer: Man who admitted killing 3-year-old son 'nearly incomprehensible' after crime

Douglass Dowty
March 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM
updated March 11, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Syracuse, NY -- A lawyer said it was nearly impossible to communicate at first with a Syracuse man who admitted killing his 3-year-old son.

"He was nearly incomprehensible," said defense lawyer Thomas Ryan.

But after medication and treatment, Marcell Washington was able to start talking about the incident that left his son, Ameen, dead, the lawyer said ...

Senior Assistant District Attorney Matthew Doran said that now that the case has made it to court, both sides can start talking about what to do with the defendant. He declined to speculate, but when asked about Washington's mental health, Doran acknowledged that was part of the equation ...

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/lawyer_man_who_admitted_killing_3-year-old_son_nearly_incomprehensible_after_cri.html

[Brettongarcia]

46. He was "nearly" incomprehensible - but clearly citing religious motives, over and over

He was indicted on felony murder; which assumes culpability.

He is Pending psychiatric investigation. But even if judged schizophrenic, though? That does not preclude an associated religious motive and character to his schizophrenia. By all accounts, at least some religious believers can be schizophrenic.

Believers to be sure, will desperately bend any point they can, resort to any sophistry, any rationalization, any censorship, to cover up a religious murder. Or cover up anything that indicates something terrible bad or evil in their own religion. Psychologically, they are in "Denial."

We know this from studies of zealots and cults. Like say Festinger's famous study.

[struggle4progress]

69. I have no idea exactly what "religious motive" means to you or what hard evidence you can exhibit

showing that the father's motive was "religious"

And there may be some significant differences between psychiatric diagnoses that lay persons might describe as "insanity" and legal findings of inculpability due to mental disease or defect: in particular, the legal finding could depend, not upon whether there is a mental disease or defect, but upon whether or not the man was aware that what he was doing was wrong, or upon whether or not he had control of his behavior

Those may be facts for a jury to determine, as it seems two years of psych evaluation and medication were required to bring the man to a condition in which he could be charged. The evidence in the news reports seems unclear, regarding whether he knew that what he did was wrong: he apparently fled the scene and was upset by the event, but also stated to police he did not think he had done wrong and would do it again. So existence of mental disease or defect may not be hard to establish -- but the questions whether he had knowledge that his behavior was wrong, or whether he acted on irresistible impulse, may be more difficult

A lawyer said it was nearly impossible to communicate at first with a Syracuse man who admitted killing his 3-year-old son. "He was nearly incomprehensible," said defense lawyer Thomas Ryan. But after medication and treatment, Marcell Washington was able to start talking about the incident that left his son, Ameen, dead, the lawyer said ...

... After the boy's body was discovered, police said, Washington ran away. Washington's sister later brought him to the police station ...

... But even if Marcell Washington is found to be not guilty by reason of insanity, he will be confined to a mental health facility, not released ... Police said Washington was highly upset and cried on multiple occasions before being interrogated. But Washington expressed no regret and told officers he would have done it all over again, according to statements. "He stated that he did not feel he did anything wrong," one officer wrote. Friends and loved ones recalled Washington's descent into madness ... Three days before the murder, Washington texted his girlfriend to ask if she was hearing voices ...

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. Enough already

You seem to think "mental illness" is not only sufficient reason to explain acts of filicide but also exclude religious belief as a contributing factor. Clinical psychologists, however, might not agree with that assessment:

They also acknowledge that (a) social factors can impact the developing brain, (b) some social factors contribute to psychological vulnerabilities, and (c) many social factors create developmental disabilities over the life span (Boydell et al., 2004). Thus, what follows is a psychodynamic model of filicide, which takes into account mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology of religion as contributing factors.

...

In this article, we argue that mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take place. In the end, we hope that our psychodynamic model encourages further discussions on the many contributing variables to this form of child murder, with a particular return to the family-of-origin experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to such acts. After all, understanding its many layers can only strengthen preventative efforts in order to reduce its prevalence in contemporary societies.

Knabb, Joshua J., Robert K. Welsh, and Marjorie L. Graham-Howard. "Religious Delusions and Filicide: A Psychodynamic Model." Mental Health, Religion & Culture (2011): 1-21. Web.

[cleanhippie]

78. +1. The cognitive dissonance here is stupefying.

[struggle4progress]

100. I'm disinclined to spend $40 to get access to that article

"We hope that our psychodynamic model encourages further discussions" doesn't suggest to me that I would find much of clear scientific value there

You might want to examine who the authors are: Robert Welsh is a dean at Azusa Pacific, Marjorie Graham-Howard is a department chair there, and Joshua Knabb (currently a department chair at California Baptist) earned his higher degrees at Azusa Pacific

The Azusa Pacific Statement of Faith asserts that the university teaches biblical infallibity. California Baptist University was founded in 1950 by the California Southern Baptist Convention, and it currently asserts "Upon completion of a degree program, each student at California Baptist University should be able to: Demonstrate spiritual literacy, including Biblical Christian faith and practice, Baptist perspectives, and the Christian’s role in fulfilling the Great Commission"

Since I'm not a biblical literalist myself, and since the Southern Baptists often drive me up the wall, I do not find myself very interested in an "argument" for a psychological "model" that might be written with hidden biblical literalist or Southern Baptist assumptions

But perhaps that is unfair of me: did you actually read the article?

[skepticscott]

107. You're not saying

that their religious belief could have adversely affected their thinking, are you??

[struggle4progress]

108. Did you read the article? If so, what did you find interesting in it?

[skepticscott]

117. It was your post I found interesting

As it was based on the assumption that religion could be responsible for aberrant behavior and thinking.

[struggle4progress]

119. Although I had suspected your predilection for personal remarks, I must admit I was surprised

to discover, on review, that you have so far contributed nothing beyond personal remarks to this thread

[Brettongarcia]

175. I read the article.Here's what I found interesting in it. As it links Religious"Delusions" to murder

The article, on "Religious Delusions and Filicide," looks pretty clinically competent.

Here's part of the intro: " "In 2001, 36-year-old Andrea Yates killed her five children by drowning them in a bathtub
(Spinelli, 2004). Specifically, Yates stated that her children would go to hell because she
was evil; therefore, she believed that she needed to kill them so as to save them from the
fire and turmoil of hell (Spinelli, 2004). Prior to the incident, she was diagnosed with major
depressive disorder with psychotic features (O’Malley, 2004). Roughly two years later, in
2003, 39-year-old Deanna Laney used large rocks to smash the skulls of her three children,
killing two of them (Bender, 2004). Laney believed that she received ‘‘urgings’’ from God
in the few days leading up to the crime (Bender, 2004). Moreover, Laney thought that if
she did not follow through with the killings, God would banish her to hell (Bender, 2004).
After the crime, she was diagnosed with delusional disorder, grandiose type
(Bender, 2004). Finally, in 2004, 35-year-old Dena Schlosser killed her 10-month-old
daughter by cutting off her arms with a knife as ‘‘an offering to God,’’ stating God
commanded her to do so. Prior to the episode, she was diagnosed with depression
and postpartum psychosis.
These recent cases in the media elucidate the global phenomenon of filicide, or a parent
intentionally killing his or her child, motivated by religious delusions. The act of filicide1
has existed since the beginning of time..."

Beyond this brief quote, are many others. They begin to give religion a formative role in encouraging schizophrenia. Documenting cases "Motivated by religious delusions."

[Act_of_Reparation]

111. Your inclinations don't concern me

Is Azusa Pacific an accredited university? Yes.

Is Mental Health, Religion & Culture a respected, peer-reviewed, scholarly publication? Yes.

Isn't it curious a few professors you assume to be biblical literalists themselves by virtue of their employer alone would publish an article laying part of the blame for religiously-inspired filicides on religion itself? Curious, indeed.

Have the authors' findings been corroborated? Yes. It is believed religious background influences the content of religious delusions, while onset and context are determined by other factors (Drinnen & Lavender 2006).

Attacking the source is a pretty base fallacy, and it would appear you're not very good at it. Do let us know if you have something substantive to add to this conversation. We wait on baited breath for your next enlightening reply.

[struggle4progress]

112. Did you read the article? If so, what did you find interesting in it?

[struggle4progress]

113. I'm a bit confused by your claim that a 2006 article can corroborate the findings of a 2011 article

Since the 2011 article is behind a paywall, which wants $40 from me, all I can examine is the abstract, which claims only an "argument" for a "model" that the authors "hope" will encourage "more discussions" without announcing any "findings"

[Act_of_Reparation]

121. Among the growing list of things that do not concern me: your inability to access scholarly journals

If it is that big an issue, take an academic job. Enroll in a university. I dunno, go to a fucking library. Whatever you so choose, there are multiple avenues by which you may access this publication, or any other I have at my disposal, so you'll have to pardon me if your appeals to ignorance fall on deaf fucking ears.

I'm a bit confused by your claim that a 2006 article can corroborate the findings of a 2011 article

Because the findings were consistent. That's how. Corroboration implies agreement, not linearity.

Perhaps you should also stop with the word games, as it would appear you aren't very good at those, either.

[struggle4progress]

122. An "argument" for a "model," intended to encourage "more discussion," does not add up to "findings"

[Act_of_Reparation]

133. Your litany of semantic nitpickings do not add up to "argument"

The fact you're taking issue with such language used in the discussion section of a scholarly journal tells me you probably don't get around to reading too many scholarly journals. Even if you were, by chance, to extend the effort necessary to read the publication in its entirety, I'm not convinced it would be much use to you.

[struggle4progress]

148. Translation: "I didn't read the article either"

[Act_of_Reparation]

150. One thing we can say for certain is...

... you definitely didn't. Yet you're pretty sure their conclusions are bunk... because, apparently, the authors use words like "hope" and "discussion" in the section all scholarly papers devote to the possible implications of their findings.



I think we're done here.

[struggle4progress]

151. Here are some evidence-based articles not hidden behind paywalls

Medicina (Kaunas) 200844(7)
Are religious delusions related to religiosity in schizophrenia?
Summary. This article attempts to explore the phenomenology of religious delusions in patients suffering from schizophrenia and to determine parallels between personal religiosity and content of religious delusions ...
Conclusions
1.Delusions of religious content were reported by males and by females. Male patients most often considered themselves as God, while female patients most often considered themselves as Saints.
2.Religiosity and personal importance of the faith were not confirmed as independent predictors of religious content of delusions in schizophrenic patients.
3.Marital status and educational level independently predicted religious content of delusions in patients with schizophrenia ...

SWISS MED WKLY 2004;134:369–37
The relationship between schizophrenia and religion and its implications for care
Sylvia Mohr, Philippe Huguelet
... Religious practices have been associated with a higher rate of religious delusions <29, 36, 37>, but religiosity is not necessary for the development of religious delusions <29> ... Religious delusions may be differentiated from religious beliefs on the basis of three criteria: 1) the patient’s self-description of the experience is recognizable as a form of delusion, 2) other recognizable symptoms of mental illness are present in other areas of the individual’s life (i.e. delusions, hallucinations, mood or thought disorder) and 3) the lifestyle, behaviour and direction of the personal goals of the individual after the event or after the religious experience are consistent with the history of a mental disorder rather than with a personally enriching life experience <44> ... The life stories of patients suggest that a central feature of the improvement process in severe mental disorders is the recovery and reconstruction of a functional sense of self in the midst of persisting dysfunction <73>. In this process, spirituality and religion may play a central role in many patients’ lives <74> ... This review permits us to ascertain that the relationship between religion and schizophrenia ranges from the worst to the best, as we can observe in the history of religion in humankind. Spiritual or religious commitment can lead to violent behaviour and refusal of treatment but also to helpful psychiatric care, social support of the religious community, and helpful strategies for coping with the illness and reconstructing the self as a legitimate person. Thus, in each person, a specific pattern of relationship between his or her psychotic disorder and religion can be elicited ...

Psychiatria Danubina, 2012; Vol. 24, Suppl. 1, pp 65–69
RELIGIOUS CONTENT OF HALLUCINATIONS IN PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA
... The construct of delusions is related to the social culture of the society studied ...

Schizophrenia Bulletin (2007) Volume 33 Issue 5
Religious Beliefs in Schizophrenia: Their Relevance for Adherence to Treatment
... Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their religious involvement:
Group 1: no religious affiliation or religion considered as unimportant in their lives.
Group 2: presence of a religious affiliation, religion considered as important in their lives, no religious group practices.
Group 3: presence of a religious affiliation, religion considered as important in their lives, religious practices in groups (at least once a month).
Adherent patients belonged significantly more often to group 3 than nonadherent patients. Nonadherent patients made up most of group 2 ...

[Act_of_Reparation]

190. Yawn.

Thank you for posting three studies which do not refute the study I presented in any way, shape or form.

The article I presented suggests religious upbringing -- not religiosity -- in part informs the content of religious delusions. This is noted rather clearly in the Psychiatria Danubina article, which shows a decrease in Catholic-themed delusions in Poland, perhaps corresponding to the decreasing influence of the religion in that country.

In other words, it isn't the patient's initial devoutness that determines the content of religious delusions, but the prevalence of religious themes in their lives. Why you object to this is utterly stupefying. Do schizophrenic Muslims have delusions of sainthood? Do schizophrenic Catholics have persecutorial delusions of Djinn? Do schizophrenic Hindus think they talk to Odin? It makes perfect sense a schizophrenic's delusions would not be novel inventions, but rather would be informed by the sufferer's social surroundings.

The third article you presented has to do with religiosity and adherence to treatment in stabilized schizophrenics. Quite relevant. Nicely done there, I must say.

And on a final note, before I wash my hands of this topic, the article I posted is not fucking hidden. It is an article published in what is essentially a magazine for academics. You wouldn't accuse National Geographic of "hiding" this month's feature on Black Holes because of the associated subscription fee, nor would you accuse Cosmo of hiding this month's laundry list of wild sex moves that drive men wild; but, apparently, because this article presents a position you find personally objectionable, you assign some nefarious intent to your inability read it.

[trotsky]

191. ...

"because this article presents a position you find personally objectionable, you assign some nefarious intent to your inability read it."

Nailed it.

[Brettongarcia]

194. Don't overlook THIS part

"SWISS MED WKLY 2004;134:369–37
The relationship between schizophrenia and religion and its implications for care
Sylvia Mohr, Philippe Huguelet
... Religious practices have been associated with a higher rate of religious delusions"

First it therefore appears that religious practice encourages religious delusion.

Next? This article - in Swiss Medicine Weekly? - attempts to distinguish "good" religious belief from bad, in part by looking at the rest of the patient's life; to see if it also exhibits delusions. This could be a useful criterion. But is it universally employed? And is it valid? It may be that - as Dr. Pierre suggested - different religious societies might simply be groups of people sharing/learning the same delusions. Since that learning takes place in a specific (religious) sphere, it may be that problems created by common delusion, would not be obviously evident outside their "religion."

[rug]

103. Religion A Contributing Factor In Father Who Kills His Child

Is that what you're trying to say.

Too bad that's not the headline the OP came up with.

[Brettongarcia]

134. YOU ARE BLIND. The accused used religious language, and described his motive this way

The accused: "demanded to know if the young boy worshiped only God.

When Ameen said "no," Washington forced open the boy's eyes so water could fill them.

"I did this because I wanted to kill the Shatan that I believed was in my son," Washington explained later. "I thought by killing a portion of Ameen, it would kill the Shatan in him."

The boy's frantic struggle convinced his father even more that "Shatan," or the devil, remained in him. The exorcism continued"

The level of denial, your unwillingness to see, is indeed stupefying here.

This might save you though: the Bible warned that the world would be dominated by a false idea of religion; that would make believers "blind." They would not be able to mentally see obvious things, that warn them that their religion is false.

This is your problem. I hope God saves you. But likely it will only happen with your own help. You need to learn to face the sins of classic religion, rather than going into denial, and rationalizing them away.

Can you do this? Will you try to face your sins, rather than covering them up, defending them?

[struggle4progress]

139. In the US, there are about eight murders daily of a child by a parent

That's enough to warrant careful epidemiological attention as a public health issue, and the topic has received extensive attention for decades, especially as the majority of child homicide victims are killed by a parent. It is possible, on the basis of study, to sort filicides in different classes, showing different characteristics: murder of neonates differs significantly from other filicides, for example; and rates, more generally, vary with age of the victim; and other evidence-based classifications are also available. It is known that a significant number of filicidal parents exhibit psychiatric symptoms prior to the murder

In the case under discussion, multiple indications suggest the event may fit into existing diagnostic categories for filicide: various witnesses are available, reporting (say) that the man indicated hearing voices, that he acted strangely, and that he became incoherent; the event was followed by two years of "psychiatric evaluation;" and so on.

[Brettongarcia]

140. Two years of psychological evaluation - whose results are not yet definitive

Suggesting that this might be one of the more interesting cases, where

1) someone might be convicted of a religious murder, or

2) hate crime. And/or where

3) the law might begin to look into cases where religion and mental illness seem (even inextricably) linked.

4) In many countries until very recently - the last century or so - similar kinds of religious killings were even legal.

5) And there are countless historical records of such activity.

6) There is no doubt that this was "normal" religious activity until very recently. So that we might expect that this roots activity might crop up now and then, even today, in the USA.

7) If it isn't normal today in some sense, that is largely because of liberals who fought to restrain religious excess.

[struggle4progress]

145. Perhaps what's not yet definitive from the psychiatric evaluation

is the question of whether or not the man can be regarded as not guilty by reason of "insanity" in the legal sense -- which does not correspond precisely to the psychiatric sense

[Brettongarcia]

162. 4 (not 99?): That's speculative.

My own guess is that the state is looking for solid evidence for a distinct mental defense; and not finding it. So soon it will take it to court as simple Murder.

This guy's religion and his pathology to be sure at times seem inextricably interdependent, and inseparable. But if they are? That Suggesting some bad things about Religion in general.

Religion is often (even "all"ways?) indistinguishable from psychopathology.

[struggle4progress]

169. Your "religion is indistinguishable from psychopathology" is just trolling for reaction

[Brettongarcia]

179. Clinical research here found Religion inextricably intermixed with mental "delusion" in filicide:

"Conclusion
In this article, we argue that mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take
place. In the end, we hope that our psychodynamic model encourages further discussions
on the many contributing variables to this form of child murder, with a particular return to
the family-of-origin experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to such
acts. After all, understanding its many layers can only strengthen preventative efforts in
order to reduce its prevalence in contemporary societies."

"Religious Delusions and Filicide: A Psychodynamic Model
Academic Journal
By: Knabb, Joshua J.; Welsh, Robert K.; Graham-Howard, Marjorie L. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. Jun2012, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p529-549. 21p. 1 Diagram. DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2011.594998. , Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?sid=0787b9b2-c3c2-4b48-9535-2cf26434af66%40sessionmgr4003&vid=3&hid=4206&bquery=Religious+AND+Delusions+AND+Filicide&bdata=JmRiPWY1aCZkYj1hOWgmZGI9Y21lZG0mZGI9YXdoJmRiPXN5aCZkYj1sZ2gmZGI9cGJoJmRiPXNlciZkYj10ZmgmdHlwZT0wJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d

[struggle4progress]

186. Your reading of the article seems implausible, not only because the excerpts, that you provide,

do not seem to say what you claim they say, but also because (as I have pointed out, with links, upthread) the article authors are all closely tied to the fundamentalist Azusa Pacific University, which teaches Biblical infallibility: one is a dean at Azusa Pacific; another is a department chair there; and the third earned his advanced degrees there

"Psychology of religion" is an abstract term, built from other abstract terms "psychology" and "religion," and thus rather far removed from the particulars of any individual mental distress. One should expect individual therapeutic work, for some psychiatric dysfunction, to be tailored to the individual: patient histories differ, as well as willingness of different patients to adopt effective attitudes towards particular treatments; the efficacy of particular pharmaceutical interventions varies with patient; and so on

Here is an interesting article:

Spiritual and Religious Issues in Psychotherapy with Schizophrenia: Cultural Implications and Implementation
Religions 2012, 3, 82–98
... The majority of the population in the world considers themselves as being significantly influenced by spirituality or religion ... The recovery model is an approach to mental illness that focuses on the process of living a satisfying life of wellbeing and autonomy, as opposed to the traditional treatment focus on symptom elimination ... Therapists conducting spiritually oriented therapy with people with schizophrenia can bring an awareness of how positive or negative religious coping may be impacting the individual ... A religious delusion is an unusual, fixed belief or preoccupation of a religious nature outside the cultural norm that impairs functioning ... Therapists should differentiate mystical, spiritual, or transcendental experience from a delusion to avoid pathologizing spiritual experiences that are culturally congruent ... Some spiritual and religious practices among African Americans in particular may include the use of prayer, the Bible, church attendance, religious singing, and the church community as coping strategies for dealing with mental health problems in schizophrenia. The church has been not only a site of religious observance but also a place of education, sanctuary for escaping slavery, economic resources, and political activism, which allows the church to be a valuable resource with multiple community purposes ... Svetasvatara Upanishad meditation in Hindu practices or the walking meditation and mindfulness exercises in Buddhist meditation may be integrated into therapy to reduce the anxiety, impulsivity, and distress often associated with psychotic symptoms ... Some tribal groups initially viewed psychotic-like states as having a spiritual value to the culture. However, the influence of Western values has led many Native American groups to come to see mental illness as more stigmatizing ...

[Brettongarcia]

192. Religious readers miss the second, critical voice in religious writing.

The high style of religious writing allows religion to be read two ways: 1) as a positive thing, or 2) as a negative one.

Take your own example. At times this statement seems positive about religion. But look at the following. Which tells us that we should be aware of both positive but also "negative religious coping." Being aware furthermore of religious "delusion":

"... Bring an awareness of how positive OR NEGATIVE religious coping may be impacting the individual ... A RELIGIOUS DELUSION is an unusual, fixed belief or preoccupation of a religious nature outside the cultural norm that impairs functioning ... Therapists should differentiate mystical, spiritual, or transcendental experience from a delusion to avoid pathologizing spiritual experiences that are culturally congruent ..." (Emphasis mine).

Not only does your own quote 1) acknowledge SOME bad things in religion. But also 2) your article inadvertently exhibits the major problem with much of current theory on religion: it accepts the cultural norm or mores, as the standard of truth.

Religion is adjudged good or bad, not by an absolute or scientific standard, but according to whether it matches what most people belief in the culture. Yet as I noted of an earlier example, this is not an absolute or scientific standard of truth, vs. pathology. It merely accepts whatever the prevailing culture believes, as the norm, as the truth.

So telling the good from the bad religion is hopelessly subjective. Especially since cultures differ. And it is totally unscientific.

Then too? Note that 3) even this, your own chosen best example, itself acknowledges that allegedly good "transcendental" experiences can be quite "congruent" with spiritual pathologies. So that your own article suggests that good and bad versions of the same thing are quite close; and hard to distinguish.

Once again, all this suggests that there is far too much subjectivity and cultural relativism, even in allegedly impartial Psychological evaluations of Religion.

Or suggesting great difficulty in distinguishing "good" from bad religion; real religion from "delusion."

[Goblinmonger]

49. Maybe he was so moved by the Holy Spirit

that he was speaking in tongues.

[rock]

51. OK you've convinced me there is a god

And he appears to the the biggest monstrosity to exist in the universe.

[cleanhippie]

52. I thought that observation was self-evident.

Glad to be of assistance.

[blm]

53. When you combine schizophrenic tendencies with religious fundamentalism this outcome is expected

and that is sad.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. No we've been told in no uncertain terms that there is absolutely no connection, and to state

otherwise is an act of extreme bigotry.

[skepticscott]

61. Yes, Google has spoken

And its wisdom cannot be denied.

[LiberalAndProud]

65. I mean no disrespect when I ponder where we would find the line.

Impossible to study, I'm sure. Where does the mental disorder begin and the religiosity end? Postpartum depression and schizophrenia, all mixed up with this terrible belief in a wrathful god, have proven to be lethal to children.

I have questions about susceptibility, culpability and interconnectedness.

[cleanhippie]

79. This post above addresses the question you raise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=117105

[struggle4progress]

104. Analysis: 32 years of U.S. filicide arrests

February 25, 2014
Filicide: The epidemiology of a horrendous crime

Over the last three decades U.S. parents have committed filicide — the killing of one’s child — about 3,000 times every year ... Mariano, Myers, and co-author Heng Choon Chan looked at 632,017 arrests between 1976 and 2007, finding that 94,146 cases (14.9 percent) were filicides ... Mariano synthesizes three main hypotheses about these underlying motives. One is that at least some parents who commit filicide have mental illness that derives from low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin ... High levels of testosterone appear to coincide with higher rates of filicide in animal studies, for example, and in the crime statistics men were more likely to commit filicide, especially after victims were older than a year.The final hypothetical motive category pertains mostly to those youngest of victims, “the unwanted child.” This evolutionarily motivated idea, also informed by other studies, suggests that parents, particularly young mothers, may kill young children who are sick or for whom they feel they cannot provide care ...

[Brettongarcia]

177. "Religious Delusions and Filicide: A Psychodynamic Model," came to slightly different conclusions

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2014, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

"Conclusion
In this article, we argue that mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take
place. In the end, we hope that our psychodynamic model encourages further discussions
on the many contributing variables to this form of child murder, with a particular return to
the family-of-origin experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to such
acts. After all, understanding its many layers can only strengthen preventative efforts in
order to reduce its prevalence in contemporary societies."

[goldent]

129. Thank you for your concern

I checked and my religion does not include drowning children in a cold shower. I might have really dodged a bullet there, but it turns out there was no bullet. Keep up the good work!

[Brettongarcia]

193. YOUR religion does not drown children? But historically much of it did similar things.

Not sure you really dodged this bullet: "psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions."