Skip to main content

View Diary: Family Chooses Prayer Over Medicine, Kills Their Second Child in Four Years (439 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  May all their offspring.... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Audri, devis1, StrayCat, Smoh, SMWalt

      ....find nice, warm, athiest, foster homes.

      I believe a sternly worded letter just might be in order here.

      by suspiciousmind on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:18:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Given that probably 98% of the Christians in the (5+ / 0-)

      US are just as appalled by this as you are, it is not generically "religion" that is wrong with them.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you really not see (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StrayCat, Smoh, Hamtree, xyz, jds1978, SMWalt

        that that's just another form of "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"?

        A million proud gun owners profess to be "horrified" by Adam Lanza, too. Shockingly enough, that doesn't change the nature of the actual problem. Nor does it the interplay between the gun industry, the impossibility of enacting federal legislation to rein it in, and the certainty that more gun massacres lie in our future.

        If Americans widely regarded religious belief as untenable and all-too-often dangerous superstition, Herbert and Catherine Schaible would have lost custody of their children after the first death, if not before. Instead, however, the religion industry is untouchable and unquestionable, even after countless disasters just like this one. As a result, they retained custody, and Brandon Schaible is now dead.

        "Religion is not the problem" is a deep-seated part of the problem. As long as that remains conventional wisdom, nothing can possibly stop religion and its inevitable symptom, fundamentalism, from killing untold thousands of innocent people.

        •  Thank you for this analogy. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SMWalt, Rieux

          It is exactly like the gun controversy, you are correct.

          Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

          by Smoh on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 03:51:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree. I don't believe that all religious (0+ / 0-)

          belief is "untenable and all-too-often dangerous superstition," any more than I believe that all atheists are ignorant and naive. A few atheists are ignorant and naive, but most are not. A few believers are dangerously superstitious, but most are not.



          Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

          by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 05:32:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Shame. (0+ / 0-)
            I don't believe that all religious belief is "untenable and all-too-often dangerous superstition," any more than I believe that all atheists are ignorant and naive.
            It blows my mind that so many purportedly liberal people blithely unload lines like that one.

            Please think about what you just wrote. The notion that religious belief is "untenable and all-too-often dangerous superstition" is a statement about ideas. The notion that "all atheists are ignorant and naive" is an attack directed at people. By pretending that those two ideas are commensurable, you are falsely presupposing that attacks on religion are attacks on people—which demonstrates a deep-seated investment in atheophobic bigotry and religious privilege. It is precisely that dishonest move that keeps religion powerful and atheists marginalized and despised, and you just declared your support for it.

            Religions are not people. They are ideas. Your pretense (which you share with millions of others in our overwhelmingly religiously privileged society) that attacks on religious ideas are attacks on people are a fundamental assault on the free marketplace of ideas. Said pretense pathologizes those who dare to attack notions that we believe (for what we think are extraordinarily good reasons) are strikingly destructive, while simultaneously protecting those notions from any serious challenge.

            You are contributing to both atheophobia and destructive religious hegemony. And, not incidentally, you're lying about the nature of your opponents' position. Please reconsider.

            •  Fine, fine, I'll make it more parallel. (0+ / 0-)

              Not all religious belief is untenable and dangerous.
              Not all atheist beliefs are ignorant and naive.

              But why are you so bound and determined to ignore the rest of what I wrote?

              A few atheists are ignorant and naive, but most are not. A few believers are dangerously superstitious, but most are not.

              My concluding statement was exactly parallel and was very, very clear that I was not slamming all atheists.



              Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

              by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 06:01:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because your move offered a peek behind the veil. (0+ / 0-)

                Your decision to misrepresent the statement "religious belief [is an] untenable and all-too-often dangerous superstition" as an attack on people demonstrates that you are coming to this discussion from a place of bigotry and religious privilege. Those forces—because you are extremely far from alone in that respect—are a massive burden on any attempt to address or redress the destruction that religion wreaks in the world.

                We aren't capable of having a useful discussion of the manner in which religion burdens humanity, much less of doing anything meaningful to prevent it, because the entire effort is choked off from the start with irrelevant "How dare you attack all religious people?!?" bullshit. Defenders of religion—including, demonstrably, you—immediately position religious adherents as human shields for the adherents' precious beliefs, and it becomes impossible to mount any serious challenge to religious power at all.

                But why are you so bound and determined to ignore the rest of what I wrote?
                Because it's irrelevant to the actual discussion. It is most tiring to have criticisms of overwhelmingly consequential belief systems deflected and dismissed by resort to absurd human-shield tactics—tactics that are, not incidentally, seriously destructive in and of themselves.
                •  Let's recap this thread. (0+ / 0-)

                  I made an (undisputed) factual claim.

                  You responded by comparing religious belief to guns.

                  I disagreed, claiming people of belief and atheists were comparable.

                  You focused on the wording of part of my disagreement to call me dishonest and claim, without any evidence, that I think atheists should be marginalized and despised.

                  I called your attention to the exact parallelism of my conclusion.

                  You accused me of using human shield tactics.

                  And yet somehow I am a rhetorical terrorist??

                  If you sincerely want to have useful discussions about religion, beginning by comparing religion to guns is guaranteed to stop the discussions before they start.

                  To speak from my own experience, I have been happily married for over thirty years to a man who can't even be called an agnostic, because that implies he thinks about these questions spontaneously. Yet over those thirty years we have had many fruitful conversations, because we treat each other civilly and have respect for each other's intellectual honesty.



                  Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                  by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:00:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ugh. (0+ / 0-)
                    Let's recap this thread.

                    I made an (undisputed) factual claim.

                    Wow: an immediate falsehood, right off the top.

                    In fact, this thread did not begin with a "factual claim," or anything else, made by you. Instead, it began with comment by Kossack homa sapiens:

                    religion is what the hell is wrong (13+ / 0-)

                    with those people.

                    Your "(undisputed) factual claim" was the second comment in the current thread, and it was a response to homa sapiens' comment. It was also a notably irrelevant response to said comment—and it is the dishonesty and bigotry of that and a few other related tactics, not to mention the manner in which those tactics render critical inquiry into religion-per-se impossible, that have been at issue ever since.

                    It's telling that you can't defend your position without immediately lying in your "recap."

                    Oh, and here's another one:

                    You responded by comparing religious belief to guns.
                    False again. I compared the defenses offered by (1) gun fanatics and (2) defenders of religion such as yourself. You are using precisely the same "How dare you criticize {guns/religion} when there are millions of good, upstanding {gun owners/religious believers} who do not deserve criticism?" tactic that the NRA is. It's bullshit when they do it, and it's bullshit when you do it.
                    I disagreed, claiming people of belief and atheists were comparable.
                    Wow: a truth!
                    You focused on the wording of part of my disagreement to call me dishonest and claim, without any evidence, that I think atheists should be marginalized and despised.
                    What a joke. The blatant falsehood that you posted in black-and-white—that "religious belief" is commensurable with "atheists"—IS clear evidence of your deep-seated and rather blatantly unexamined investment in atheophobic prejudice and religious privilege. (And boy, how awful of me to "focus on the wording" you offer into the world, huh? What kind of reprobate could possibly do something so heinous?)

                    I'm happy to entertain another explanation for why you availed yourself of that hateful (not to mention overwhelmingly common, in our religiously privileged society) equivalence, but you haven't even attempted one.

                    I don't much care what lies you tell, including to yourself, about the demeaning notions you hold that lead you to pretend that religious belief and atheist people are comparable things. That move showed your true colors, and it doesn't much matter whether you admit to them, even to yourself. Prejudice and privilege are not all that often visible to the members of hegemonic majorities who possess them.

                    I called your attention to the exact parallelism of my conclusion.
                    No, you attempted to revise your actual conclusion when the underlying hatred of that "conclusion" was exposed. And you simply ignored the fundamental offensiveness of wheeling in that particular "conclusion" as a response to homa sapiens' comment. The "exact parallelism" was an after-the-fact attempt at a coverup and an ugly irrelevancy regardless.
                    You accused me of using human shield tactics.
                    Because that's exactly what your opening "(undisputed) factual claim," not to mention the religious-people half of your bigotry-founded declaration in your "I disagree." comment, was. You are baldfacedly attempting to use religious believers as human shields to silence any attempt to criticize religion-as-such. That tactic is outrageous and wrong.
                    And yet somehow I am a rhetorical terrorist??
                    Yes—for the reasons I've explained at length.
                    If you sincerely want to have useful discussions about religion, beginning by comparing religion to guns is guaranteed to stop the discussions before they start.
                    But I didn't compare religion to guns. You're lying again. Why do you refuse to respond to me honestly?
                    To speak from my own experience, I have been happily married for over thirty years to a man who can't even be called an agnostic....
                    Yes, "some of my best friends are Jews," too. Inspiring. Is your husband Stephen Colbert's Black Friend, as well?
                    Yet over those thirty years we have had many fruitful conversations, because we treat each other civilly and have respect for each other's intellectual honesty.
                    But pretending that religious belief is comparable to atheist people is the opposite of both "treat[ing atheists] civilly" and of intellectual honesty. You can't avail yourself of bigotry and unjust privilege and then whine when the despised minority that is marginalized and pathologized by those tactics refuses to respond to your offenses "civilly." Perhaps more to the point, flattering your overwhelming religious privilege is not actually "civility."

                    Hard as it is for you to accept, your behavior on this thread overtly demonstrates both intellectual dishonesty and incivility to nonreligious people. Atheists aren't obligated to ignore that just because you'd prefer (and because your unjust privilege usually entitles you to expect that) we do so.

        •  Jeez please cite a study that religion in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wee Mama

          households is a higher risk of a child being killed by religion than a household without religion.
            The two products are very different.

          •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 08:00:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What in the world? (0+ / 0-)
            please cite a study that religion in households is a higher risk of a child being killed by religion than a household without religion.
            Do you seriously doubt that?

            It's rather hard to fathom what relevance that empirical issue has in this discussion, but regardless: are you actually suggesting that children in religious households could be less at risk for being killed by religion than children in non-religious households are? How in the world could that make any sense?

            In the original post here we have two examples of children in religious households who have been killed by religion. There are plenty more available, even if one discounts (though one shouldn't) the GLBT and/or religiously-skeptical children of wingnut-religious households who kill themselves because of their inability to reconcile their identity with their family's faith.

            Against that, you've got... what? When has a child being brought up in a non-religious household ever been killed by religion? Which is to say: what in the world are you talking about?

            The two products are very different.
            Presumably so—but the point you've just tried to make suggests the exact opposite.

            More relevantly, the actual parallel being discussed here is between the arguments that are immediately made by advocates of (1) unlimited gun rights and (2) untouchable religious privilege whenever yet another innocent falls victim to (1) firearms or (2) religious lunacy. In every such case the defenders immediately wail that no one is allowed to argue that {guns/religion} are to blame, because of what an awful idea that is about the millions of "good and responsible" {gun owners/religious believers}. Supposedly we critics of {guns/religion} are ethically required to just exempt {guns/religion} from any blame for atrocities committed by people drunk with the power provided for them by {guns/religion}; we're obligated instead to restrict ourselves to analysis of how the "good" people who value {guns/religion} behave, while blaming each and every atrocity on the particular individuals who just randomly happened to use {guns/religion} to destroy lives. It is absolutely impossible for {guns/religion} to be at fault.

            It's the same argument, and it's no less nasty or wrong in the religious case than it is in the gun one.

            The "products" may indeed be dissimilar, not that you've demonstrated that—but the actual point being made here is that the defenses are functionally identical, including identically callous and dishonest.

            •  Im not suggesting anything and your fanatical (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wee Mama

              behavior against religion is as bothersome as those whose behavior is fanatical as this diary exposes. Defending others on any issue would qualify as being like gun control debate.

               IE DFH are stinky--  no they are not, 99% of DFH are clean decent people.-- OHH your defending Stinky people just like the gun nuts defend guns and society can not get clean people because of your defense of DFH. blah blah blah
                Your argument is useless.

              Having guns are more dangerous  to children than not having guns and studies back that up, There, as far as I know, are no studies that backup having religion in a family is more harmful than having no religion which suggest this type of religious behavior is abnormal, That does not mean it would not be worth having a study done on religion vs non religion and child deaths, but I doubt there is enough evidence to even conduct a study.

              •  Heh! (0+ / 0-)
                Im not suggesting anything....
                Oh, well then. Why bother commenting?
                and your fanatical behavior against religion is as bothersome as those whose behavior is fanatical as this diary exposes.
                Wow–that's some weapons-grade nastiness right there. I call out religious privilege and atheophobic bigotry without mincing words, and you declare that that makes my behavior "as bothersome as" a couple whose neglect has caused the deaths of two of their children. So you are baldfacedly arguing that outspoken atheist rhetoric is as bad as negligent homicide. What freakish nonsense.

                It makes you feel good to avail yourself of such mindless bigotry, doesn't it? Wow again.

                IE DFH are stinky--  no they are not, 99% of DFH are clean decent people.
                Bzzzt—fail. "DFH" are people. The phenomenon that atheists in this comment section are criticizing, by contrast, is religion—a group of ideas. And your atheophobic allies are responding by wailing, falsely, that that's an attack on religious people.

                Your own analogy demonstrates your inability to grasp what's going on. While you have two debaters directly making assertions about the same thing—"DFH"—the real-world argument you are trying and failing to synopsize involves critics talking about ideas and defenders complaining (again, falsely) that those critics are attacking people. You've somehow missed all of that.

                Your argument is useless.
                My argument has gone entirely unnoticed by you.
                Having guns are more dangerous  to children than not having guns and studies back that up....
                Shocking.
                There, as far as I know, are no studies that backup having religion in a family is more harmful than having no religion which suggest this type of religious behavior is abnormal....
                I'm not aware of any studies done particularly on the family level, but there are plenty that compare the religiosity of nations and U.S. states to those jurisdictions' levels of crime and other indicators of societal malaise. And every one finds an overwhelmingly strong correlation: the most secular places in the world (and in the U.S.) are also the safest, healthiest, happiest, and most successful. So what's your point, again?
                •  ----continued (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  How does a comment infer a suggestion?  Religious privilege  sorry but Im not deeply religious I am anti- fanatical. These people are fanatics who hurt their own child not "Religion"

                  okay-- DFH  self cleanliness beliefs-- does that make you feel better?  

                    You do not grasp the conversation as the commenter defense of religion in the "generic form" not of a specific religion but even that is incorrect the problem is not even religion in a specific form but a fanatical adherence to something in this case it is religion.

                  In its narrowest sense, religiosity deals more with how religious a person is, and less with how a person is religious
                    so it is about the persons intensity of belief than the actual belief.

                  outspoken atheist rhetoric is as bad as negligent homicide. What freakish nonsense.
                   Nice false accusation
                   Your rhetoric is as fanatical as these people's belief in a religion I am not comparing the outcomes of those fanatical behaviors.

                  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
                    How does a comment infer a suggestion?
                    I think you mean "imply," not "infer." And I'm not sure that I'm capable of teaching you the basic concept of implication. If you don't understand that already, I don't think I can be much help.
                    okay-- DFH  self cleanliness beliefs-- does that make you feel better?
                    Well, that revision renders your "IE" synopsis incoherent—so I'm not sure I "feel" anything about it at all.
                    You do not grasp the conversation as the commenter defense of religion in the "generic form" not of a specific religion but even that is incorrect the problem is not even religion in a specific form but a fanatical adherence to something in this case it is religion.
                    Your distrust of both periods and commas aside (again, I'm afraid this is something I can't help), the criticism in question very much is directed at religion as such, and your bare assertion that that's "incorrect" doesn't establish anything. Neither does the human-shield "How dare you attack my religious grandparents!" nonsense that you've tried and failed to defend.

                    We claim that religion as such is the problem. You and yours wail "No, no, no! It's only fanatical adherence that is the problem!" But given that you provide no reasons (1) to come to that conclusion or (2) to deny that there is anything inherent to religion that causes atrocities such as the one detailed in the above diary, there's no real reason to take your objection seriously.

                    Obviously you don't want to believe that religion as such is responsible for horrors like the one at issue. Why should we care?

                    Your rhetoric is as fanatical as these people's belief in a religion....
                    Cute. Having been shown what ridiculous garbage your prior claims were, you simply revise a word here and there and try again. What a fabulous approach to rational debate.

                    Look, clearly you're using the word "fanatic" as an otherwise empty signifier for "everyone who does stuff that shopkeeper doesn't like"—rendering your attacks on "fanaticism" tautological nonsense.

                    If you seriously want to take part in an intelligent discussion, you're going to need to do more than pull reflexive prejudices out of your rear end, haphazardly stick English words like "fanatic" on them, and toss them out into the ether with a minimum of punctuation. Regardless of your interest in understanding or ability to comprehend what your opponents are saying, we actually have arguments that you refuse to address. Meaningless blather about "fanatics" does nothing to rebut them.

                    •  So is this couples problem Religion or Religiosity (0+ / 0-)


                        in you opinion?

                      •  "This couple" (0+ / 0-)

                        has a large number of problems. Religion is a very big and very consequential one of them.

                        Meanwhile, I have yet to see "religiosity" given a coherent meaning. Declaring (after the fact) that every time religion hurts people, that's not religion but "religiosity" or "fanaticism" at work is tautological nonsense.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site