Another couple found guilty of murder after using techniques found in Christian parenting book

[Krystal Meth]

Two parents in Washington state have been found guilty of murder after following the abusive parenting techniques advocated in the parenting book "To Train Up a Child" by Michael and Debi Pearl.

Larry and Carri Williams received the maximum prison sentences allowable under the law after being found guilty of beating and starving their adopted daughter Hana to death. The methods they used to "discipline" their daughter were advocated in the controversial Christian book.

The New York Times reported:

Late one night in May this year, the adopted girl, Hana, was found face down, naked and emaciated in the backyard; her death was caused by hypothermia and malnutrition, officials determined. According to the sheriff’s report, the parents had deprived her of food for days at a time and had made her sleep in a cold barn or a closet and shower outside with a hose. And they often whipped her, leaving marks on her legs. The mother had praised the Pearls’ book and given a copy to a friend, the sheriff’s report said. Hana had been beaten the day of her death, the report said, with the 15-inch plastic tube recommended by Mr. Pearl.

Some of the discipline techniques the Pearls teach include:

• Using plastic tubing to beat children, since it hurts a lot but leaves fewer marks to alert authorities
• Wearing the plastic tubing around the parent's neck as a constant reminder to obey
• "Swatting" babies as young as six months old with instruments such as "a 12-inch willowy branch," thinner plastic tubing or a wooden spoon
• "Blanket training" babies by hitting them with an instrument if they try to crawl off a blanket on the floor
• Beating older children with rulers, paddles, belts and larger tree branches
• "Training" children with pain before they even disobey, in order to teach total obedience
• Giving cold water baths, putting children outside in cold weather and withholding meals as discipline
• Hosing off children who have potty training accidents
• Inflicting punishment until a child is "without breath to complain."

Michael Pearl tells one mother on his website, "I could break his anger in two days. He would be too scared to get angry. On the third day he would draw into a quiet shell and obey."

http://www.examiner.com/article/anot...ain-up-a-child

[Apis]

http://www.examiner.com/article/anot...ain-up-a-child

Therefore, religion is bad.

'The child must be beaten and struck against the rocks for the glory of the Lord.'
- Matthew 10:26

This literally has nothing to do with religion. I get a little frustrated when Atheists believe there would be world peace and purity in the world without it. People have been killing each other since the dawn of man and that's going to continue until the end of the human race. How many wars in the past century were even started because of religion?

[Methmatician]

Therefore, religion is bad.

If it's inspired by their religious beliefs, then yes.

[Apis]

If it's inspired by their religious beliefs, then yes.

I could argue that men who have abused religious beliefs and used them as casus bellis for war were never true 'believers' to begin with. If Christianity clearly states that murder is a sin (which it does), how do religious fanatics find justification to kill in the name of God? The reality is that they simply use religion as a political tool. It can be said that religion induces a sense of moral immortality in an individual which can lead to violent crimes. Applying the same logic, Atheism can be just as harmful if the individual believes he won't be punished for his actions. Stalin and Hitler were both Atheists and they are responsible for the deaths of millions. Does that then mean Atheism is bad?

Religion has no notable negative impacts; if it does, it provides just as many benefits. Consider how many violent crimes have been avoided because the would-be criminal believed a higher power would punish him.

[Methmatician]

I could argue that men who have abused religious beliefs and used them as casus bellis for war were never true 'believers' to begin with. If Christianity clearly states that murder is a sin (which it does), how do religious fanatics find justification to kill in the name of God? The reality is that they simply use religion as a political tool. It can be said that religion induces a sense of moral immortality in an individual which can lead to violent crimes. Applying the same logic, Atheism can be just as harmful if the individual believes he won't be punished for his actions. Stalin and Hitler were both Atheists and they are responsible for the deaths of millions. Does that then mean Atheism is bad?

Religion has no notable negative impacts; if it does, it provides just as many benefits. Consider how many violent crimes have been avoided because the would-be criminal believed a higher power would punish him.

Their definition of murder isn't the same as mine and the government's. Murder sanctioned by God is not murder, according to most religious people. And yes, religion has been used as a political tool since it imposes itself on politics (look at Iran and Saudi Arabia), but that doesn't mean that the people using it don't believe in it. People who commit crimes in the name of their religion do truly believe in what they're doing and not using religion as an excuse for their crimes.

Atheism, on the other hand, is not organised, there are no set of rules and every Atheist should be treated as an individual when it comes to their personal religious beliefs. And Atheist committing a murder because they believe there are no consequences is nonsense. Why commit a murder in the first place if the only motivation was that they weren't going to be caught? There is almost always a reason behind murders and not being caught is not the reason. Religious people who murder because of their religious beliefs also believe that they will not be punished because they believe God is on their side, but that's not their reason for committing the murder, the reason is their religion gave them the green light to commit such acts.

Stalin and Hitler did not go around killing people because of their religious beliefs. Hitler killed people because of his racial ideology that made him believe some people on this planet were not worthy of life. He also killed people to secure power and because he did not like certain groups (homosexuals, communists, etc). Stalin killed people to secure and maintain power and authority. He also killed people because he believed they committed crimes and he simply believed more cruel punishments were just. However, both of these men did not commit their acts because of the lack of faith or rejection of the existence of deities. They were motivated by something else, mostly political ideology and in Hitler's case racial ideology and both sought power. Religious people who murder or commit crimes against innocent people because of their world view that is supported and created by their religious beliefs should have their respective religions criticised because it was because of those religions that gave rise to such beliefs that led to the crimes being committed by those people.

[Apis]

Their definition of murder isn't the same as mine and the government's. Murder sanctioned by God is not murder, according to most religious people. And yes, religion has been used as a political tool since it imposes itself on politics (look at Iran and Saudi Arabia), but that doesn't mean that the people using it don't believe in it. People who commit crimes in the name of their religion do truly believe in what they're doing and not using religion as an excuse for their crimes.

Atheism, on the other hand, is not organised, there are no set of rules and every Atheist should be treated as an individual when it comes to their personal religious beliefs. And Atheist committing a murder because they believe there are no consequences is nonsense. Why commit a murder in the first place if the only motivation was that they weren't going to be caught? There is almost always a reason behind murders and not being caught is not the reason. Religious people who murder because of their religious beliefs also believe that they will not be punished because they believe God is on their side, but that's not their reason for committing the murder, the reason is their religion gave them the green light to commit such acts.

Stalin and Hitler did not go around killing people because of their religious beliefs. Hitler killed people because of his racial ideology that made him believe some people on this planet were not worthy of life. He also killed people to secure power and because he did not like certain groups (homosexuals, communists, etc). Stalin killed people to secure and maintain power and authority. He also killed people because he believed they committed crimes and he simply believed more cruel punishments were just. However, both of these men did not commit their acts because of the lack of faith or rejection of the existence of deities. They were motivated by something else, mostly political ideology and in Hitler's case racial ideology and both sought power. Religious people who murder or commit crimes against innocent people because of their world view that is supported and created by their religious beliefs should have their respective religions criticised because it was because of those religions that gave rise to such beliefs that led to the crimes being committed by those people.

All of your statements are essentially correct. However, we need to further define religion. When you say murder can be justified, the truth is that it can only really be justified in the teachings of Islam. Christianity, for example, strictly prohibits murder for any reason - even for God. The Crusades themselves had nothing to do with religion; it was simply an excuse to gain more territory and wealth. Sure, the peasants who joined the Crusades hoping to be exonerated for their sins were victims, but I could argue that American soldiers who fought and died in Iraq were mislead into thinking they were defending their homes. I obviously wasn't suggesting Atheism was the reason Hitler/Stalin did what they did; I was just contrasting the actions of Atheists to the actions of religious followers. If religion ceased to exist, I don't think violent actions would become any less common.

Do you think the occurrence of violence would decrease if religion disappeared?

[armenianbodyhair]

Anti-theists are as delusional as religious extremists.

[Apis]

Anti-theists are as delusional as religious extremists.

Perfectly summarised.

[Methmatician]

However, we need to further define religion.

I like to use the commonly accepted definition; a set of beliefs and world view that relate humanity to some sort of existence and intelligent design.

When you say murder can be justified, the truth is that it can only really be justified in the teachings of Islam.Christianity, for example, strictly prohibits murder for any reason - even for God.

Did you ever learn the story of Abraham and his son Isaac? God ordered him to kill his son to show devotion to God. Abraham was willing to do it and at the last second God stepped in and said his belief was sufficient enough and asked for a goat sacrifice instead. This is from the Bible, the holy book of Christians. It asks a follower of the faith to commit murder that was sanctioned by God. In this case the murder did not happen, but other parts of the Bible allow murder to be committed in the name of God. 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death". In this verse the Bible says that children who swear at the parents may be put to death. Of course, there are certain religions that do not advocate violence, such as the Jaines, but most religions do, especially the Abrahamic religions.

The Crusades themselves had nothing to do with religion; it was simply an excuse to gain more territory and wealth. Sure, the peasants who joined the Crusades hoping to be exonerated for their sins were victims, but I could argue that American soldiers who fought and died in Iraq were mislead into thinking they were defending their homes.

The Crusaders were told by the religious leaders that God had sanctioned their killings and that they were obligated to retake the holy land. It was because of their religious beliefs that they believed such an order to be true and for such an action to be just. If they did not believe in God then they would have no obligation to go fight and they would not fear punishment for not performing God's will. Regarding American soldiers going to Iraq, these soldiers knew what they were getting into when they joined the Army. They didn't need to be persuaded, it was their job to go fight wherever their government tells them to. Of course, that doesn't mean they weren't mislead. They were told Iraq had nuclear weapons but later this turned out to be false. However, these soldiers were not ordinary people who were told by the government to fight and it was not the war was not based around religion.

I obviously wasn't suggesting Atheism was the reason Hitler/Stalin did what they did; I was just suggesting the actions of an individual without religion. If religion ceased to exist, I don't think violent actions would become any less common.

I think they would. I have to say though, there are still many sections of society where people base their life around violence. This involved organised crime and poverty stricken areas where the strongest survive. But all those religion conflicts and division would disappear without religion. Sudan would be one country instead of two, Mali would currently not be experiencing insurgency, the massacres of Christians would not be occurring in Syria right now if there were religious people in Syria.

Do you think the occurrence of violence would decrease if religion disappeared?

Refer to above.

[Apis]

Did you ever learn the story of Abraham and his son Isaac? God ordered him to kill his son to show devotion to God. Abraham was willing to do it and at the last second God stepped in and said his belief was sufficient enough and asked for a goat sacrifice instead. This is from the Bible, the holy book of Christians. It asks a follower of the faith to commit murder that was sanctioned by God. In this case the murder did not happen, but other parts of the Bible allow murder to be committed in the name of God. 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death". In this verse the Bible says that children who swear at the parents may be put to death. Of course, there are certain religions that do not advocate violence, such as the Jaines, but most religions do, especially the Abrahamic religions.

There's a reason the New Testament came into existence. It 'updates' the teachings of the Old Testament. Amusingly enough, I've only ever heard Old Testament passages being used to prove a point. To clarify, when I referred to Islam being fundamentally flawed in terms of moral standings, I was referring more to Sharia law which is a fundamental proponent of Islam.

I think they would. I have to say though, there are still many sections of society where people base their life around violence. This involved organised crime and poverty stricken areas where the strongest survive. But all those religion conflicts and division would disappear without religion. Sudan would be one country instead of two, Mali would currently not be experiencing insurgency, the massacres of Christians would not be occurring in Syria right now if there were religious people in Syria.

Perhaps, but there's really no way to know. You obviously have those negative aspects of religion, but there's also the husband with a cheating wife looking for a way to get his revenge without breaking God's laws. We would have to quantitatively find which of the two results in greater deaths to figure out whether religion is detrimental or not. Until then, I'm just going to assume its influence is neutral.