Hit a baby? Unbelievable. I can't believe CPS hasn't removed these children.

You want to know how to damage a child and build a monster or at least a low-functioning human being? Let them know, the earlier the better, how NOT to trust adults.

@1 and Dan.

That is a quote from Christopher Hitchens, author of "God is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything."

Childhaven.org Don't just weep for these poor children.

@3, actually in the book Hitchens is quoting the original author, Steven Weinberg.

As for this awful little story, I find it infuriating that when you hear about, say, a Muslim father beating and confining a girl child based on his religion, there is little doubt that this does not make it OK and that child should be taken away.

Yet sprinkle some Christianity over the whole damn mess and authorities are working "with the families" (i.e allowing them to continue to physically and psychologically abuse them if they promise not to).

Hete's a simple rule: If it's wrong without religion, it's wrong with religion. Religion gives you NO justification for anything.

Take note, people who want to cut off the ends of babies genitals.

These are the same people who would let a child of that age "cry it out" because they've been fed and changed, and have no further need of human contact. The book The Continuum Concept likens the crying an infant does when it has been hurt or abandoned to that of an animal in pain. One should need a license to be a parent.

Disclaimer: I hate kids.

Who the FUCK hits a baby? It's a baby. They don't know any better. A baby cries because it needs something, even if it's just some coddling and attention. There's a reason it's called "babying" to coddle a whiny person: because that's what you're SUPPOSED TO DO WITH A BABY!

Bet they kick puppies, too.

I always thought it was more that religion gives evil people a false cover of "goodness" to conceal and/or excuse their evil behavior. Take religion out of this equation and it's a simple, straightforward case of child abuse. Only religion could complicate this to the extent that some of those children are still in their abusive homes.

Yeah, some people are ignorant and gullible, but I don't think that speaks to any inherent goodness.

@5 "If it's wrong without religion, it's wrong with religion."

How about this, "If you do wrong because of your religion that means there's something wrong with your religion."

@ 10 This behavior can be justified biblically. These people aren't completely misreading the Bible. Nobody reads Dr. Spock and misunderstands him so bad they end up torturing an infant. This is actually in the religion.

When people are Christian and also good people by secular standards, they are ignoring large parts of the bible. To be a Christian and be a good person, you have to lie to yourself and do a lot of rationalizing and interpreting.

The people who believe it completely and take it literally and at face value, those people are guaranteed to do evil, evil things.

All you have to do is honestly believe that book is the inerrant word of God, his instructions to humanity, and you will either do evil things or resign yourself to hell.

@12 I'm confused, are you disagreeing with me? I don't see how our statements conflict. As a recovering pentecostal myself, I completely agree that good people have to ignore large swaths of the Bible in order to maintain association with Christianity. My issue is with Weinberg's statement: I don't think that religion makes good people do bad things. It does make ignorant and gullible people do bad things, but I won't assume that the ignorant and gullible are inherently "good" people in any regard.

The fuck's wrong with Wisconsin, lately?

And on another happy note, Guy with 88 kids wants to hit 100 by 2015:
http://www.odditycentral.com/news/father…

13 "I always thought it was more that religion gives evil people a false cover of "goodness" to conceal and/or excuse their evil behavior."

Makes it seem as though you are claiming these people are gonna be evil anyway and the religion just give them an excuse.

I'm saying it is more that these people want to be "good" so they look to the bible to see how to be "good" and the bible says "thrash your child against a rock".

I see a distinction, I do.

I think it's a very important distinction because it speaks to the NALTs. This is then true when said to moderates, "You may not be evil yourself but you are giving cover to, putting a lovely face on and keeping alive this thing that is the direct cause of evil."

I think religion provides justification to do evil. Religion puts moral responsibility outside a person. This numbs the mind and the conscience, it allows people to see beating a child as benign and loving.

Are any of us truly good? I don't think so, I think we can aspire to do good. Acting with an attempt to do good requires both an acute sensitive conscience and a critical thinking mind. You must own your choices and be responsible for them, thus the primary source of your morals, ethics, and attitudes must reside within you.

Religion places the source of morals outside the conscience and critical mind. In this case it puts the responsibility upon written symbols that lie on a page within a book, until a human applys themselves to interpreting what those symbols mean. The ethics of beating a baby are not consulted, the "golden rule" dismissed, because the reader has interpreted that permision to beat the child has been given. I disagree that religion makes good people do bad things. Religion provides justification for those who refuse to take personal responsiblity.

Sorry if @17 does not make sense. I'm still on narcotics.

Dogmatic religions [mostly the abrahamics] set their moral guidlines based on a priori 'truths'. This discourages situational ethical thinking, and even personal accountability: so long as you follow the rules you needn't--in fact shouldn't--hash out moral questions based on fact and reason.

This is a fundamentally flawed approach if one wants to actually minimize suffering and maximize human potential.

Dogmatic religions open the door for ethical simpletons to do massive harm while believing themselves to be paragons of virtue.

They can suck it.

@15 Ah, I gotcha. Yes, I can see the distinction there. To be honest, I think we're both right. Some religious people commit acts of evil out of an underlying desire to be "good", because there's plenty of fucked up instructions in the Bible. On the other hand, some people are mean-spirited/abusive/evil to begin with, and for them I do believe that religion gives an excuse to act on those impulses.

I'm sure religion gives good people reasons to do evil things, but this example still sounds to me like enabling evil people to do evil things because HITTING A 2 MONTH OLD CHILD OMGWTFBBQ.

Dammit. Religious organizations... just... DAMMIT.

Kim! You've been in my thoughts. How is post-surgery recovery going?

Google "breaking the baby" if you want to really loathe your fellow man for a few hours.

And due respect to Hitchens/Weinberg---religion is the codification of fear. Sometimes that codification can set you free from fear and make a potentially evil person good. Sometimes it amplifies the fear, while giving it a convenient target. For good people to do evil things requires fear, not religion.

In terms of the topic, back when I was a fundie, it didn't lead me to doing this kind of horrific thing. Mostly, because if I read something that encouraged being violent or immoral, I'd assume I misread or misunderstood the passage.

The main ways it made me a worse person were by 1) encouraging prejudice against outsiders and 2) filling me with fear, shame and guilt over everything. People full of fear, guilt and shame react aggressively and cruely when triggered.

The NALTs notwithstanding, I for one will be overjoyed when humanity's religion fever finally breaks.

There will still be spirituality, of course -- that's a condition of being human, thank goodness. But religion is purely a man-made thing -- we thought up the shackles that we lock around our own hearts & brains. I'd go so far as to say that religion has damn little to do with God at all, and more to do with what your nosy, self-righteous neighbor thinks YOU should be doing about/with/for God.

"For good people to do evil things, that takes religion." I agree 100%, Dan.

I've finally had it. Only going to access the Savage Slog from the main Savage page, not from the Savage Slog page. That way I have to click through each individual item and I can skip reading the O They Will Know We Are Christians and the Every Child Deserves A Mother And Father. Too shocking, and I'm already in full agreement.

20 Can I be more right? How about we're both right but I'm just like %5 more right than you are?

It'll help me sleep. :)

Doing better everyday, Canadian Nurse. Still tired, still sore, and waiting on biopsies from the multiple things they removed. And, glad to be home with my family, guitars/bass, and my dog. Thanks for asking.

Take care.

Ps. It sounds like we've a common story with regard to religion. Fear and guilt are strong motivators. It's so easy to allow our minds to rationalize our actions as benign. Such intricate psychological defense mechanisms required to retain beliefs that allow us to justify abuse, injustice...

I was 9 pounds 10oz at birth, i know thats kinda freakish. Are babies really that small at 2 months? I would think even a 6 pounder would be closer to 10 or more by 2 or 3 months.

@30- no they are NOT that small. They are 6-8 pounds at birth, but by two months they should be nearing 12-13 pounds. So they're starving their babies, too?! Beat 'em and starve 'em- the christian way.

Re: #23

DON"T Google "breaking the baby"! You'll be sickened, cry, then probably look for someone to punch.

@12 Actually I've heard at least one person who seemed to have done their research argue that the "spare the rod and spoil the child" bit had been *completely* misinterpreted. According to him the rod referred to was a shepherds crook, which was not used to *strike* the sheep, the hook end was used to gently snag the sheep and guide it where you wanted it to go instead of wandering off like it was trying to do. A call for gentle guidance not beatings.

@ Kim: Glad that you are home with the things and people you love. You are in my thoughts daily.

Thanks #30. I smoked a lot of weed today and didn't read the article very closely.

"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

You are what you do. If someone does evil things, they're not a good person. In my opinion, relying on fairytales that are thousands of years old for guidance is a serious abdication of one's responsibility for their own actions. If you want to be a "good person", you need to be aware of what you're doing and why.

I'm glad you're home and moving in the right direction, Kim. You'll be in my thoughts and any prayers I have that still matter.

I think you're right, that our religious stories are fairly similar. I think even, perhaps, where we've ended up: still connecting ourselves somewhat with the Christian story, while knowing many self-proclaimed Christians see us as the enemy.

@30/31 Yeah, that was my thought, too. Most babies are back at their birth weight by two weeks, not two months. My two-month old was born at 6 1/4 pounds, and he's at about 12 now.

And seriously, why the fuck would you beat a two-month old? It sure as fuck isn't gonna make 'em stop crying! The worst I've done to mine is yelling "shut the fuck up already!", which, a) I feel bad about, b) was at 5 am when he'd been crying since 3, c) I wouldn't've done if I thought he'd remember it, and d) I immediately followed with picking him back up and rocking him until he calmed down.

@34 That isn't the only passage that instructs parents to use a rod. Proverbs 23:13-14 is very clear about what you should do with the rod and even reassures that the child won't die as a result. That's an awful strange reassurance to make if you're only suggesting "gentle guidance."

Dan ... uh ... I think the entire world needs an IGBP. Problem is, where to start?

Beyond the horror of this particular story, I am also struck by the blind hypocrisy of religionists who claim that atheists can never be good people because they don't have God (preferably their own God) telling them how to distinguish between good and evil.

People who claim to be religious but still do something like this are nothing but empty vessels, lacking (or having rejected) the ability to judge what is truly good or bad (and I'm not even talking about the grey areas) unless they've been brainwashed to follow a specific set of rules mindlessly.

People who can do this (and feel completely justified) might as well be robots with faulty programming. Except for the fact that robots can't be held responsible, but people can and should.

#9, I agree with you: "religion doesn't make "good" people do bad things. bad people may use religion as an excuse for bad things they do, however."
When you have a bunch of people reinforcing each other's bad beliefs and bad behavior in the religious context, then religion encourages the bad behavior. However, there's nothing special about "religion" that does this--any social group that shares values can do this, and sadly they do.

Duh. The bible has like 4 recommendations on how to treat your children. Hug them, kiss them, and teach them? Nowhere. How about: Rape 'em, beat 'em, sell 'em or eat 'em? That's in there.

No, "religion" doesn't do this. People with religion do this.

@40 That's the problem of relying on another persons research and interpretation I suppose. They made sense to me at the time.

@43: The Bible advocates beating an unruly and disobedient child, and there certainly are instances in which it is considered acceptable, under Old Testament law, to sell a child. But you better cite your sources before you start claiming that my holy books promote rape and cannibalism. I've read the text of the Torah through; please advise me.

That said, I've been leafing through the Mishlei Shlomo (Proverbs of Solomon) and there are some proverbs you may find wise or interesting, not to mention some odd metaphors. (PROTIP: the Tanakh is full of what we'd today consider odd metaphors.)
"Do not withhold good from the one who needs it when you have power in your hand to do it." (3:27)
"Drink water from your own cistern and running water from your own spring. May your springs spread out rivulets of water in the squares. You alone shall have them, and strangers shall have nothing with you. Your fountain shall be blessed, and you shall rejoice with the wife of your youth; a lovely hind and a graceful mountain goat, her breasts will satisfy you at all times; you shall always be intoxicated with her love. Now why should you, my son, be intoxicated by a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of an alien one?" (5:15-20)
"Go to the ant, you sluggard; see her ways and become wise, for she has no chief, overseer, or ruler; yet she prepares her bread in the summer; she gathers her food in the harvest. O lazy one, how long will you lie [there]; when will you get up from your sleep?" (6:6-9)
"Can a man rake embers with his skirt without burning his clothes?" (6:27)
"For wisdom is better than pearls; all desirable things cannot be compared to it." (8:11)
"Reprove not a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you." (9:8)
"[As] a gold ring in a swine's snout, is a beautiful woman from whom sense has departed." (11:22)
So, yeah.

45 I am including some verses you may take issue with. That's fine but I will explain why I'm including them as instances of rape despite the fact that the term is never used.

Women are basically chattel in the OT. So, it's really only called rape when the woman has an obvious owner whose ownership should be respected. It's very clear that the bible considers the rape of a woman to be a crime one man commits against another man. This is why the woman who is raped is, under some circumstances, to be stoned to death for getting raped. She is not the victim.

If a woman is your own slave or a survivor from a conquered land that you are allowed to take as reward along with dyed cloth or what have you, in those cases you aren't raping her. She isn't rapable since she has no owner. So, instead, you are "taking her as your wife". This is almost always a "wife" you are explicitly free to discard when you've grown tired of her.

On to the rape.

1. If you agree that the bible says that selling a daughter is acceptable, the bible promotes rape by implication. Her likely rape in that situation is so obvious, the bible actually addresses it. "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

2. The bible promotes the rape of women from lands conquered in war in Judges 5:30 and 21:10-24, Zechariah 14:1-2, Numbers 31:7-1, Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and 20:10-14.

3. The bible promotes rape as a way to marry an unwed woman against her will for the low, low price of 50 pieces of silver in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Also, God has David's innocent wives raped as a way to punish David along with the slow, painful, torturous, week long death of his infant son.

Also, Lot offered his daughters to an angry, rapey mob. This pleased God so much he rewarded Lot for it.

@47: "explicitly free to discard"
Nope.
"10. If you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord, your God, will deliver him into your hands, and you take his captives, 11. and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her, you may take [her] for yourself as a wife. 12. You shall bring her into your home, and she shall shave her head and let her nails grow. 13. And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from upon herself, and stay in your house, and weep for her father and her mother for a full month. After that, you may be intimate with her and possess her, and she will be a wife for you. 14. And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have afflicted her." Deuteronomy 21.
If a man marries a slave, she becomes a free woman; no ifs, ands, or buts.
Also, if an unengaged woman is raped, she is not forced to marry her attacker. He must pay the bride-price regardless, but whether or not she marries him is decided by the head of household.
Also, Lot was rewarded for protecting travelers, and it's an open question as to whether he actually offered his daughters or whether it was simply a gesture.
Finally, a woman who is raped cannot be put to death for having done so. The verse in question states that it is a capital offense for a man to have sex with a woman who is engaged to be married to another man. If she is complicit in this adulterous act, she is to be killed too, but if she is raped (i.e., if it is at all possible that she offered resistance), she is innocent.

@44 I think that is a problem, yes. I'm gonna get heavy on you for a second. I just think this is such an important topic.

You should read the OT closely. You should make careful study of that book.

Even if you are a non-religious, tolerant pluralist who thinks all faiths should be respected but you yourself are completely disinterested in being religious, reeeeeaaaaaad it. That book is the basis of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism. That is the single most powerful piece of literature ever written.

If there is anything you should treat with doubt with skepticism, it should be what apologists tell you about what is in that book when you haven't read it yourself.

Oh, great - another fucking Bible-thumper. You know what, sweetie? I have read it. It was the most colossal waste of time of my entire life. If you got something out of it, far fucking out, but cut out the fucking shoving it down everybody else's throat already. You're no better than the other wingnuts out there.

@48 I think you are choosing translations that allow for interpretations that best suit your purposes. I think you are making some fine distinctions.

"Also, if an unengaged woman is raped, she is not forced to marry her attacker. He must pay the bride-price regardless, but whether or not she marries him is decided by the head of household."

Do you not see how the first sentence contradicts the second sentence? I don't understand the distinction you make here.

It is a capital offense to rape a woman who is betrothed to another man. If you want to rape a woman, make sure she is single. As long as you are willing to marry her and pay her bride price, it is okay to rape her. That still seems like the act of forcing a woman to fuck you is only wrong if there's another man involved.

I don't fully understand how my reading is completely different from yours.

@50 I'm not a bible thumper. I am saying everybody should read the bible despite their beliefs. I mean, you've read the thing. It's not gonna make you believe if you don't believe. You know that. That's not what I'm saying.

This blog often deals with ways in which the Bible and people's reading of the Bible is being legislated. It deals often with ways in which the Bible is being used to support the persecution of certain types of people.

That sort of thing is why I think everybody should read it.

I've read multiple translations (or versions) of the bible, cover to cover. There are numerous translations: http://www.derose.net/steve/Bible/Englis… to choose from in English, alone. There are even denominational differences in the contents, see Catholic vs. Protestant. There is also about seventeen extra canonical gospels. I think it is a fascinating piece of literature. Still, the reader will find what he/she wishes to find between the pages. Unlike the field of medicine which requires a doctorate and multiple exams, a residency... to interpret the human body, the bible allows everyone to be an authority.

@54. Sorry to hear that, dear. Maybe fostering and subsequent adoption, as my friends - one wonderful couple in their late 30s- just did, would be an option for you.

Kim, May Gods abundant blessings rest on you. I been lacking in reading Slog, and didnt know. You are in my prayers, and I am sending you my love and virtual hugs, hope you feel em. As the Pope Benedict, while generally a useless fellow, smartly reminded us " the communion of believers is eternal and not bound by geography or time"

What word is being translated as "rape" and what does it mean? For example, is it possible for an unmarried young woman to have consensual sex with a guy, or is that going to qualify as a rape? A lot of those texts have to do with the fact that marriage is also a legal institution for transferring property and so forth. The moral categories we may wish to apply are not necessarily transferable.

Long story short: you can't really blame fundamentalists for their literal interpretations of the bible, but then blame the bible on the grounds that it only admits of unique literal interpretations (generally performed by the non-expert).

I'm sure Phil Caminiti is "meaty" enough for a baseball bat. Who wants the first swing?

Jesus . . . are you reading this? Step up, bitch.

. . . pussy