This is what happens when you mix 2 parts crazy, 1 part religious freak, and a splash of tainted benevolence. Now before you all start attacking me for making light of this story, do yourself a favor and read the entire article first. I believe this story raises a very interesting issue.
For those too lazy to read, essentially the story boils down to a mother, LaShuan Harris, drowning her three kids in the San Francisco Bay for God. Harris believed that she was sending her children to heaven, which in her mind is a better place.
While the story is disturbing, I find the defense's insanity plea quite fitting yet interesting. The defense says that Harris is crackers. Now why is she loony? Is it because she drowned her kids or is it because of her belief that she was sending them to heaven? Now think about this a second, or don't if you prefer :)
A few hundred million people in the US alone believe in heaven. Now I can safely say that most of these people believe heaven is a better place than our current Earthly residence. That's the lure of heaven in the first place. So if she's crazy for believing this, aren't many Christians, Muslims, and Jews slightly insane as well? Seriously.
Thanks to Atilla (The Hun?) for the story.
Related posts:
- What Is Heaven?
- Katherine Harris, Christian Freak Or MILF?
- Christians Put The Smackdown On Their Kids
- Sam Harris–Link Between Religion And Violence
- Marine Corps Declares Kids Find Jesus Boring
That’s a hell of a point. The argument that doing this to your kids is bad does seem to assume doubt on the idea that they will in fact go to heaven. However, it’s also pretty much required in a legal sense, given that this country by law accepts that some people don’t believe in heaven and that some do. Look at it this way: the courts have to base their judgement on what they know. They don’t know, based on tangible evidence, whether or not there is a heaven (if you present a holy book or the like, they will basically be required to ask what evidence there is that it is true, and insanity will ensue). They do, however, know that this life ends when you drown, and so in the interest of the right to life they must say that this act was wrong.
As for the woman, that’s far more interesting. What would the church say about this? I imagine they would say that she was in the wrong because you shouldn’t kill. But what about the idea that she’s crazy? Would they argue that the woman who drowned her kids to send them to heaven was in fact sane? If they said she was crazy, why? She thought she was doing well, and from what I know of the church, I assume the kids will in fact go to heaven. What would the response be? Is killing people to send them to heaven okay, since it’s for a good (and by the church, real) purpose? Or if she is crazy, what does that say about the church? Or is there another option? Even if the church says the act is wrong, what about the woman’s logic?
I’m hoping to see a lot on this one.
You know the current psychological rule of thumb is, if you talk to God you are religious, if he talks back you are schizophrenic. I am with you in asking, why is it not schizophrenic to talk to God in the first place?
This has relates to a deeper issue that I’ve written about once or twice. Christians believe the following things:
1. Certain people will go to heaven when they die.
2. They know who will and will not go to heaven.
3. Heaven is an infinitely better place than earth.
4. Self sacrifice is the greatest good (think Jesus).
So, based on these beliefs, the greatest good a Christian can preform would be to sacrifice your freedom (and maybe even salvation) by killing everyone they know to be heaven-worthy. So, either Christians don’t fully believe one or more of these statements or almost none of them are willing to live up to the highest moral good.
She’s a diagnosed schizophrenic.
sidfaiwu, I question your fourth assertion. Christianity teaches that good deeds will be ignored.
dragon, it depends on which type of Christianity you subscribe to. One of the larger divisions in the faith is “doctrine of works” vs predestination. I don’t specifically remember which denomination accepts which, however, which in this case would be helpful. Also, remember when you quote Ezekiel, you are quoting the Old Testament, which obviously came before Jesus, and is sometimes seen not as an official part of Christianity, but as a sort of “history lesson” on the Abrahamic faith. Interpretation is important here.
Good Deeds
Matt 5:16 “In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (NIV)
Matt 6:3-4 “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (NIV)
More biblical contradictions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Simple, the act is wrong and insane, but the logic is good and sound.
They’ll go to heaven, you do not have the right to kill.
eh.
Ooh biblic contradictions, nice find. I do not like purists, they say too much and read too little. if they took it literally, truly, faithfully literally they’d be either in jail or learn something from the experiment. So then, the Japanese have a philosophy when building temples, “perfection invites the demons” they actually put a column on backwards or something so its not perfect. Very useful philosophy ^^. One can also say that any perfect idolized being is no more or less than a god or a demon. A true god would not want to be worshiped nor want to interfere with life of humans because that would cause sin. The untouched are the clean ones, this we define as ‘innocence’ and
pure’ so those who touch them defile by merely touching. By being worshiped, this god is inviting war in his name. No where in the bible is there a rule against using god’s name for war. or at least no man has combined the two commandments ‘one should not use my name in vain’ and ‘thou shalt not kill’ or ‘thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods’ to form this rule. Do we blame man or god? Its easy to see they are the same and foolish since they act so much alike.
Well, one must have a slight brain disorder to actually believe. The mere idea that there is a higher being is crazy and then actually building your life on this belief is so absurd that one can’t really expect such people to be able to see the difference between what kind of actions are within the boundaries of acceptance of a modern society and which are not.
But let us for the sake of argument accept that these people are not insane, where will that bring us? Well, actually nowhere. I assume that you have all heard a lot of people say that they place God first and above everything else, this implies that they place their own interpretation of right and wrong first and above everything else (since God cant direct them).
So no matter what you base your argument on such people should bee viewed as dangerous. Why would any government actually support having such individuals roaming the streets? The insanity of it all will probably come forth during the aftermath of this trial where someone are bound to actually label this woman as a “true believer†and saying that she made the ultimate sacrifice for her kids.
I say get out your stray-jackets and thumb screws, throw in a few pointy sticks to for your own amusement too.
Disclaimer: This story makes me want to cry.
NewOne, I find what you say about a slight brain disorder insulting to people who believe. I am an atheist, but you should not forget that indoctrination can be VERY powerful. I always compare it with brainwashing…
Perhaps the reason killing children and infants so they get into heaven is not a great idea by Christian standards is that they may be held in a permanent state of infancy. A lot of Christians believe that old people are restored to a “youthful glory”, but it is still an “adult glory.” It is much less popular to speculate on what happens to infant. Do they become adults? Or do they remain perfect little infants for eternity? If the latter is true, then perhaps that is the reason not to kill children. Can a baby, infant, or child truly enjoy heaven without adult reasoning and experiences?
that’s why i love living in a voutnry with a secular religion.
Doesn’t the bible state that it’s wrong to take a life? so, if she gave the ultimate sacrfice by not going to heaven but going to hell, to send her children to heaven, shouldn’t she be rewarded by going to heaven? (goto 10)
Of course, this is just plain wrong, and she should NOT be let of easy because of this, she should in stead by institutionalised and ‘Atheified ™’
of course, imagine what would happen when this woman is put in a padded room. What will the doctors tell her? It’s wrong to send people to heaven? (if it’s a good place, then it’s not)
that should of course be a
“Country with a secular government”
oh, Gasmonso, why would we get angry at you? Kill the messenger? or in this case, the one who points to the messenger?
Alcari said:
[Would doctors tell her that] it’s wrong to send people to heaven? (if it’s a good place, then it’s not)
That’s a pretty simple conclusion. I fail to see how heaven being a good place means that it is not wrong to send someone there.
To make this argument, we much postulate that heaven exists, is good, and is a good place for all people to go to. Your test statement is that “It is not wrong to send someone forcefully to heaven.” If we can find a circumstance where the test statement contradicts the postulates or makes the postulate contradict themselves, then the test statement is unsound. If we can find that you are making a presupposition that if shown false would cause a contradiction, then the test statement is unsound.
The false presupposition that you are making is that sending someone to heaven does not affect other people. For example, if we killed a missionary who would go to heaven, it could mean that several people would not learn the steps necessary to go to heaven. This is a circumstances in which the test statement does not support the postulates.
My previous post about babies not enjoying heaven is a circumstance where the presupposition is that “babies enjoy heaven”. If this is false, it would cause “heaven is a good place for all people to go” to be false.
Andrew, isnt one of the ten commandments “thou shalt not kill” so is sending someone to heaven somehow different?
That’s only partially what we were talking about.
“Thou shalt not kill” applies to the killer. If the commandments are correct and have no exceptions then I suppose that’s enough.
The real penetrating question is, if heaven exists and murdered babies go to heaven, is the only moral reason not to kill a baby because of the commandment not to?
That is the question we are discussing in the last few posts.
Then forget the idea that theres a heaven, she KILLED HER CHILDREN. Thats it, end of story.
I agree with you 100% there irishthunder.
But I find it fun to ponder and debate such moral issues. It can help to poke holes in my own and others unfounded beliefs. (Yes, I’m admitting that some of my beliefs are unfounded. I have a very strong and unfounded conviction that natural peanut butter tastes better than walnut butter, even though I have never tasted walnut butter. Unfortunately for me I am allergic to walnuts so I will never be able to practically test my conviction.)
Things like these make me wonder why one is allowed to have children without a permit?
Adoption is very hard and controlled. You are examined and even after you get the child you are monitored but just giving birth and then abusing that life requires no permits and has little monitoring.
Many people believe the following to be true:
A) Heaven is real and it is a beautiful, wonderful paradise, infinitely better than life on Earth.
B) If a child, raised Christian, were to die, that child would go to heaven (see A).
If, arguendo, we accept A and B, then why is killing such a child morally different from, say, throwing them a surprise party and serving them their favorite food?
Andrew argues that part of the problem is that “sending someone to heaven” (i.e., killing them) affects other people — presumably, those whom are left behind on Earth. An interesting point, but I don’t see it as being persuasive, since many actions that affect others (even ones that prevent a missionary from “saving” others) are not considered morally wrong. This should be no different.
===
Also, it can be argued that “Thou shalt not kill” was only intended to apply to Jews not killing other Jews.
Well, I’ve never posted here before, and I am in fact a Christian, specifically a Catholic. However, I read the list of points posted above by sidfaiwu, and I wanted to respond to number two, namely that Christians believe that “They know who will and will not go to heaven.” Very, very few Christians believe this, in the Catholic Church to assume someone is going to heaven is a sin called presumption, and to assume someone is going to hell is a sin called despair. So, a Christian would not kill others who seem to be good and innocent, because a Christian cannot know they will go to heaven.
Of course, there are additional reasons for a Christian not to kill: the aforementioned commandment, the fact that to murder another is to take away their life (which was given to them by god), the fact that to murder another person places you in a state of sin and risks your salvation, the fact that most churches teach that one should obey just laws, and so on. Really, I doubt whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or anyone murders at a higher rate than another group. It seems to me this mother’s problem was mental illness, not belief in god.
Daniel, thanks for posting — it’s always nice to get a sincere, reasoned response from someone on the “other side.” ;-)
However, I do have a few questions regarding what you said.
* very few Christians believe this
Perhaps very few Catholics claim knowledge of who will or will not go to heaven, but my experience suggests that evangelical/pentecostal Christians often claim to have such knowledge. Specifically, they claim that if you accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal savior… yadda yadda… then when you die you WILL be flying up to heaven.
* the aforementioned commandment
And yet, in the Bible, God repeatedly encourages and rewards genocidal slaughter, so the commandment seems rather… ummm… flexible.
* is to take away their life
Actually, heaven or hell, it does not seem to take away their life, but merely to transition it to some unearthly plane.
* murder… risks your salvation
For many Christians, repenting your sins and accepting Jesus seems to be quite sufficient to overcome a few measly little murders.
* I doubt whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or anyone murders at a higher rate than another group
This one is trickier, but I think that it’s safe to say that their are some fair number of religious folk who do, in fact, kill others on the basis of religion. On the other hand, I don’t of any atheists who engage in similar behavior.
So from the discussion I take it that we view heaven as a nice place, but have you ever thought about what it must be like??
If you give me 1 hour and tell me not to do anything, ill be bored to tears after 3 minutes. So of to heaven we go. We are now to spend an eternity here?? WTF, after 100.000 years there are no jokes left to be heard, we also know all the stories/history, no knowledge is unfamiliar to us, basicly after 100.000 years we more or less know all there is to know. Whopido, only 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 millions years plus an eternity left to go.
…….Oh God I really hope there is no such thing as an afterlife……..
@NewOne
this is dumb. seriously. ask your parents to get you some medication…
Well Boris, do you care to explain what is so dumb about this?
I agree that the concept of a heaven is dumb but for some reason I do not think that is what you were aiming at.
And last a quote just for you Boris…
“A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs — jolted by every pebble in the road.”
— Henry Ward Beecher
It seems that religiosity is common amongst child killing mothers. here is an old article discussing three more mothers. To be fair, the experts don’t blame religion but mental illness. But… “They say religiosity is a common theme among psychotics”.
Daniel,
If an infant dies and goes to heaven to do believe they will spend eternity as an infant?
“”To be fair, the experts don’t blame religion but mental illness. But… “They say religiosity is a common theme among psychoticsâ€.”"
to bad I can’t fool anyone in believing the opposite is true as well….
NewOne, you just have to learn to ignore the believers sometimes. Any time you cast doubt on the wonderfulness of their heaven they get all wiggly on you. Your point is sound. What the hell DO people do in heaven? Sit around knitting all those wings the angles need? I can’t imagine there is any television, and if there were it would just show TBN shows. Books would all be the holy bible and jack chick tracts (and, while highly amusing, there is not an infinite supply of them). When you don’t have to work for a living or anything, what do you do all day?
In fact, since I am allergic to boredom, it sounds like heaven is hell to me.
Very interesting subject, just wondering why you chose such a topic? Anyways… great read :)
A when back I was performing some study on the leading selling and advise anti aging creams available available, and it actually blew me away how a single item produced the leading selling and leading advise product lists time and time once more, across a dozen vendors as I checked and rechecked what creams and merchandise looked most promising in a sometimes confusing and ever developing anti-wrinkle market place.