According to a story in the Chicago Sun-Times: Officers responding to a report of an exorcism on a young girl (age 3) found her grandfather choking her and used stun guns to subdue the man, who later died...
I say, good. It'd be nice if every exorcist were killed. Anyone who harms someone for the patently ridiculous reason that they were trying to get Satan or demons out of that person is of low intelligence and the world would be much improved if the exorcist were eliminated.
And evidently the little girl's mother was in the room, too. The child should be removed from that crazy mother and placed into the custody of child protective services. I don't care what you believe, but allowing a child to be harmed because of it is unacceptable.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
And if you think that stuff like this is uncommon, here are some links that should scare you into thinking otherwise:
Nun Dies After Convent Exorcism
Wisconsin Charges Minister in Death of Autistic Boy
Exorcism - The Facts (sic)
Exorcists and Exorcisms Proliferate Across U.S.
Beaten to Death for God
And there are more, but I'm sufficiently sickened to stop here.
It's a bunch of sorry, sick muthafuckas. It's enough to make you wish there was a god.
With billions of people on this planet, it is reasonable to assume there will be some disturbed individuals and with more people there will be more and more disturbed ones. And I hate to belabor this point(bullshit again Bawdy), but if these thoughts and belief systems would stay personal(not the personal lou is talking about, a personal relationship with a divine being, but personal as in kept within the individual)you would not have as many of these loons trying to be so fucking helpful. And I realize this is just a wish; there is no way this could be legislated and I wouldn't want it to be(hell, it would be unConstitutional and against my libertarian thinking).
Just today, in a stall in the public restroom at my place of business, there on the grab bar, was a small graphic novella(comic book in other words)describing the "coming Rapture" called "Here He Comes". And I thought to myself, "Who would this type of material be aimed at in this format?" The answer, of course, was easy; someone who couldn't or wouldn't read the Bible on their own. Someone who couldn't take the words in the Bible and come up with their own ideas, but needs to be led into believing someone else's views. To me, this is the scary part, people who cannot think for themselves and are open to suggestions, many of which are truly destructive(and to this I am including other areas of thought, not just religion).
I know where you are coming from, Bawdy, but what if your "personal" belief system includes the belief that demons can inhabit humans - and further, that choking the human while praying over him/her will remove the demon. Then they believe that someone close to them is infested with demons. This is where their "personal" belief system butts up against reason and the law. That is, people can believe in fairies and sky fathers and demons and pixie dust, but when their fucked up beliefs cause physical damage, I think most of us would draw the line there.
Taken a step further, though, what about when their fucked up beliefs cause mental damage? This is where Dawkins calls religion child abuse - and you know what, I laud him for doing so!
csm,
My friend you are mixing beliefs with actions. Actions can be illegal, beliefs cannot. This reminds me of a story about a Colorado man who had been convicted previously for child molestation and had served his time(which in my book should be life, but that wasn't the case). After he got out, he started a journal where he would write disgusting sexual scenarios with children and drew awful pictures. The feds found this out and tried to prosecute him for these supposed crimes. I never found out how this ended up, but I thought to myself(and this was the point of the news story on NPR); how could this be illegal, just putting thoughts down on paper?
That's true, Bawdy. But then again, most people's actions are informed by their beliefs, no?
Let's talk about the christian scientists. They believe that god will cure them and that doctors aren't needed. So some of them will refuse to take their children to a doctor when they are sick. This is "lack of action" due to a belief. Should it be a crime (negligence, child abuse, etc.) to not take an action that is certainly the proper thing to do based on a ridiculous belief?
I tussled with your example, csm. Would the rights of the parents to believe the way they want and to pass this along to their children trump the health and welfare of the children? It was close, but I think they do.
I believe "rights" are intangible things we cannot touch or hold. Some outcomes of rights are tangible(a punched ballot or an association of people), but the actual right itself is not. Healthcare, IMO, does not meet this test. I have posted before that I do not consider healthcare a human right; I believe it is a service provided by other human beings who generally get compensated for suppling the service, much like a plumber or an electrician(going without water or electricity when it is happening to you at the moment IS extremely important, no?).
So with this in mind, I would have to side with the Christian Scientist parent's decisions; as the motivations for their decisions are the same motivations any other parent would have(the best "foundation for living life")even though we do not agree with them. I personally don't agree with parents taking their children to McDonalds or giving them fast cars at sixteen years old either(which could end up with the same consequences eventually), but I would not infringe on their decisions.
Oh, and I must thank you for the fine portrait of TJ; lends some class and works well as a reference point. It doesn't hurt he is my favorite, either.
Glad you like the TJ portrait. I've decided to sort of rotate the image that is displayed on the site over time. Started out with the constitution, changed to the Earth for awhile, and now President Jefferson.
Now on to your "tussle"... so I guess you are drawing the line with action? Since you seem to be against the choking grandpa to administer exorcism thinking he is doing what is right for the child, but in favor of the negligent christian scientists not taking their children to the doctor.
And yes, I know my choice of wording is somewhat inflamatory, but hell, I enjoy being inflamatory as you doubtless already know.
Bawdy, I guess the question I have is then, in your opinion, if actions can be illegal can inaction(s) be illegal?
Post a Comment