Notes on Missing the Point
Jan Ardena said:
Because it gives the impression that the "Bible" was somehow the cause of the boy's murder.
I'm surprise you have to ask.
Actually, it's not that I have to ask; instead, I'm surprised you went there.
For instance, there is a point I left out of my commentary, and I omitted it intentionally. Why? Because I figured it was time to give it a rest; after all, my side won last month, and the question is going to be settled, I think, come June.
It didn't seem like a point worth making; why push the point when it's not necessary?
Thus:
Yeah. Every child deserves a mother and a father.
I would say, instead, that children deserve parents who actually love them.
Once upon a time, back in the 1980s, Tacoma, Washington was wracked by gang violence. When the headline emerged that a guy had been shot to death so that the bangers could steal his
shoes, people were taken aback. And it's true, some tried to make a point about the inferiority of blacks. But for most, the point was that the gang situation got so bad that they were killing each other for
shoes. Not because one didn't have any shoes, but because one wanted nicer shoes than the nice shoes he was already wearing.
Back then, it wasn't about black people. It was about how out of control the situation had grown. Today, sure, there are people who will exploit the Bible, and while it's true I think they have more legitimate reasons to wonder about the influence of religion than folks in the '80s had to wonder about the humanity of black people, it really is a subordinate point; one can certainly exploit this tragedy as a point about the dangers of religion, but guess what?
You are the one who invited the question in this thread.
This was a seven year-old, and he was behaving much as a seven year-old is
supposed to behave. Religion or no, it's an absolutely absurd reason to kill someone. Like the woman who killed her twelve year-old daughter by forcing her to drink bleach because the girl lost her virginity. Or the woman who killed her sons because she saw one of them kill a frog, and took it as a sign from God.
This is a problematic, even shocking, human condition. These clearly were not intelligent people; when the boy slipped into an unresponsive state, they actually called their
pastor first. They needed to be
told to take the boy to a hospital.
I intentionally left the problems of uneducated religion out of it. I intentionally left the question of those astonishing heteros out of it.
The Bible? That's one of the reasons the
parents gave why the child was beaten to death. And yes, it is a somewhat shocking reason. It's not like the father who beat his teenage son into critical condition because he caught the boy sexually abusing the young stepsister.
People can introduce the politics all they want, but people understand the heat of passion when it's something like raping a young girl. Some would even cheer that thrashing, but those who wouldn't at least get the idea of the scale of the issues involved. This was lying about homework, or reading a Bible passage. This wasn't just a stupid reason to beat a child to death, it's a mind-bogglingly stupid reason to beat a child at all.
True, I expected the religious angle would come up at some point, but I can honestly say I didn't expect the religious to invoke the question. In the long run, yes, the question of religion arises, in either context, poor conduct or gay marriage. But either of those are largely exploitative political points; even I, who am generally hostile toward this manner of Christian faith, can look past that question.
I've known people who would take a swing at their young children for reasons having nothing to do with the Bible. The only real difference between them and the Palmers is pretty much accidental—
they didn't kill their children, though we all know they easily could have. And, yes, just like the Palmers, it would have been an accident.
"Contractor or not, she's just a kid, Hei. They die more easily. You know?"
Not everyone has a talking momonga to remind them of the obvious. Of course, the Palmers shouldn't have needed one; Bible or not—this could have been about bedwetting or the cookie jar—it's a really
stupid reason to beat a child. At least in Hei's case (cartoon frames above), Suo was dumb enough to point a rifle at him when she had no intention of shooting. If you're going to kick a kid twelve feet out a door, you really ought to have a reason.
Markiece Palmer didn't have a good reason to beat and shake Roderick Arrington Jr. to death. Dina Palmer didn't have a good reason to stand by and let it happen. When I see her weeping at her arraignment, it is not empathy I feel, but a poisonous spike of, "Why are you crying?"
The Bible? It's a really dumb reason to beat a kid, but it's the reason they gave.
Shall we start omitting such descriptions of tragic events in order to be sensitive to the religious? Is that what you would prefer? So that people never really know what all went into a tragedy because it might emotionally distress some religious person somewhere to think that some half-witted moron who beat his kid to death would cite a failure to read the Bible among his reasons?
I loathe eugenics in general, but these are the sort of parents that make it sound like a good idea to have a licensing system for reproduction.
After all, you need a license to have a dog ....
