Norseman

Well Duhh

Read the definition for scizophrenia, then it all makes sense

LP675

Yeah I hear of this one on the radio yesterday, but I heard she ‘stoned’ her kids, not bludgeoned them with rocks (I suppose there isn’t a huge difference).

Your analysis of the case is flawed, as are the conclusions you have arrived at.

Firstly you have absolutely no idea what evidence was brought before the court to assist in their determination of whether she was legally insane (if the article you have linked to in your post is your only source). So from the outset your assertion ; “If it cannot be that they don't think God speaks to people, then it can only be because they don't think God would tell a mother kill her children", is false. You have no idea (again if this article is your only source) of what experts had to say on her mental condition. There could be a myriad of contributing evidentiary factors which could compel a jury (who believed God speaks to people today) to find this woman legally insane.

A Christian could quite easily determine that the command was not from God on the basis of scriptural teaching, and the LACK of analogous cases to this situation in the bible. The article says “Laney believed God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.�. It would be entirely reasonable for a Christian to reject the notion this command was from God on the basis it contradicts NT teachings on the end times. These teachings indicate the time of return of the Lord is not (and will not be) known by any man, and will come as a surprise (Matt 24:44, Mark 14:33), and there will be no explicit direction prior to it warning people to get their ‘houses in order’(Matt 24:43). This is just one of many scriptural teachings contradicted by the alleged command from God. Also, where in the bible is anyone commanded by God to kill their young offspring, and then not told to refrain from the action that was commanded? In other words, did any godly man ever actually kill their young child as a valid response to the command of God? The answer is obviously no. So the Abraham on the mountain story is not a valid analogy because he didn’t in fact kill his son.

Of course I doubt the question of whether God had spoken to someone would ever actually be put to a jury (tell me if I am wrong please! I would love to know of any such cases you zany Americans might have).

“So what do "modern" Christians make of new stories like this?, I think she is as mad as a proverbial hatter, and perhaps even demon possessed.

LP

Gawen

I've been thinking this all week long. Laney, the lady who killed her children and left the youngest (18 months old) severly handicapped, who claims God told her to do it, is quite insane, in my laymans frame of mind. But this involves the loss of life.

But where does one draw the line of insanity or mental problems when people claim their God talks to them? Does it matter if said deity tells them tonight is a good night to witness at Outback restaurant and get a steak in the process? Where does the line..."God has moved me to do/say this" remove a person from an insanity clause. Is it when no one is hurt or a nuisance?

As for the 'stoning'....I have heard that she bludgeoned the kids with a big rock. I saw a cop on tv holding the 'murder weapon'.

What has shocked me through all this is that her husband has supported her through the ordeal. I truly don't know if I could do such a thing.

brighid

It appears quite clear that this particular woman has an organic defect of some sort and therefore she is mentally ill.

I had a discussion with a Catholic friend about God talking to people and how many become insane (let us use St. Joan as an example.) She claimed that it was "natural" for these people to go whacky because if God talks to you it's a pretty enormous strain on the brain.

I argued that God, being Almighty and all, has the ability to speak to human beings WITHOUT making them go insane and a loving, compassionate God (perfectly so as claimed) would be unable to harm his subjects just to chat him/her up. If nothing else, he should cast some magical spell over them to protect their fragile, human brains from sensory overload and eventual synaptic failure.

It is common for the mentally ill to her "voices" and have "visions" (which are simply hallucinations). Many often hear "God." Just as the effects of tripping on acid, or another hallucinatory drug are not "real", but the sure damn real to those experiencing these "sensations."

It has always seemed to me if God is this perfect, omnimax God incapable of evil he could not direct anyone to dash children upon stones, or otherwise murder them.

Brighid

ElectEngr

Excuse me for comming out of left field on this one, but this situation gives a whole new meaning to Bob & Tom's "The Guiding Shiite" .

Later,
ElectEngr

Hawk

I think the Abraham on the mountain story is applicable. Abraham, acting on advice from god, intended to kill his son right up until the last minute when god told him to stop. Abraham had no idea god was going to stop him. He was blindly following god's commands. What would have happened to Abraham if he would have said, "I’m not doing this. If you are really god, you would not tell me to kill my child."? God would have kicked his butt for disobedience. The moral of the story is "don’t question god". Laney learned her lesson well and when god told her to kill her kids she did it.

Postcard73

This case has been discussed a lot in GRD, and I think it fits better there, so I'm moving this thread.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

Heathen Dawn

I’m glad I have a “harm none” clause that protects me from obeying obnoxious voices.

capsaicin67

Interesting.

I think that those that believe they receive external commands do have compromised thinking, but there is a continuum from "ignorant" to "insane" probably. And the danger is how non-quantifiable and grey it all is.

Opinions/observations. Some folks have impulses that they cannot accept or that they do not understand and attribute these to outside sources. I also think that there are those that have compulsive or incessant self-chatter in their heads that attribute this to external sources. And then there are those that literally "hear" auditory voices that sound external. Oh, and some folks seem to make shit up to manipulate people precisely because it is unmeasurable.

People that have organic problems can have hallucinations. I have seen people who simply looked miserable and their presentation was consistent across time, and the amount of energy put into their symptomology far outweighed any possible secondary gain from faking it----so I am satisfied that hallucinations do exist in reality [not that what they perceive is real, mind you].

I agree that symptoms can take on the flavor of religiosity when a person saturated with such imagery prior does have a psychotic break or descent into mental illness.

I have also seen many mentally ill to whom religiosity was a total non-issue. Some folks are extremely concrete as part of their blunted thinking and personality, and further some simply have little time or luxury for waxing sentimental about a just god when their own brain has malfunctioned. Pretty well pulls the luxury of believing in such niceties out from uder some people for good.

If I heard a voice that told me to kill children I would at best presume I did have some encroaching mental problem, at worst assume it was Satan not god because that ain't a very godly thing to do! Even as a child I thought that the Abraham story was ridiculous.

I, personally think that whether a person is insane or not should have minimum impact on sentencing. I'm ok with Guilty and Insane, or Guilty and Not Insane. The primary difference being whether the person requires medicinal treatment henceforth. I absolutely do not think that Insanity should reduce sentencing in any way, shape, or form as near as possible. I have seen too many frauds and predators hide behind the ambiguity, and regardless, "guilty" is "guilty". A clear message of unacceptability for extremely dangerous behavior should be sent as consistently as possible with minimal encouragement to confuse or sidestep the consequences. If you are so unpredictable and dangerous that your behavior has resulted in murder, then society should provide containment for the remainder of your life, IMO.

My experience has been that many educated, trained, professionals have extremly poor judgement and common sense on these issues and evaluating their validity as well. Not all. Some. And it is extremely difficult to train common sense or good judgement, or to certify/license such qualities. And that is not to say that medications and treatment are not beneficial to many, many people---they are. They really are. We've come quite far in the past 50 years. But I'm not comfortable with the objectivity of assessing symptoms and allowing such subjective and non-quantifiable evals to excuse dangerous behavior or remove personal responsibility.

I agree that the husbands [and insome instances wives] that "support" these short-circuited people are somewhat difficult for me to empathize with. But people have weird ideas all over, and in the realm of mental illness---and "love"---a lot of folks lose their bearings and discernment.

Skeptical

It wasn't exactly my only source. I had followed some of the earlier news stories which reported that those who knew here reported her to have been a loving and devoted mother and that she had not shown signs of mental illness in the past.

It is true that I have not read the trial transcripts, but I think its pretty safe to believe that the majority of the defenses argument focused on her belief that God told her to kill her children, espcially since she had not had any prior incidents demonstrating mental illness. (that's from memory, I don't have a link to earlier new reports)

God also says not to murder people (10 commandments), yet he commanded Abraham to take Isaac up to the mountain and murder him. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself", but the OT also says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", and as a result hundreds of thousands of "witches" were burned at the stake. See the problem? My exact point is that there is plenty in the OT that would allow someone to think that God was ordering them to do something like this. Your just picking and choosing those things you like and ignoring the rest.

Have you read the story recently? The reason Abraham didn't actually kill his son is that at the last instant an angel calls out to him to stop. What if the angel had not called out to him? The entire point of the story is that God _could_ tell you to kill your child and you are supposed to do it and not ask questions and _not_ expect to be let off the hook by having an angel stop you. Abraham had no reason to believe that an angel was going to stop him. You are missing the entire point of the story. Try looking it up again, Genesis 22:9-12, and then tell me that the analogy is not valid.

The question _is_ put to the jury _all the time_. The question is "is this person legally insane". The evidence is presented and the jury has to decide if the expert witnesses have convinced them that the person on trial is legally insane. Part of answering that question is asking "did this person act in a way that would lead you to believe they were insane". It seems that the only thing she did that would qualify is say that God told her to kill her children.

If she had said "I killed them because I was angry", there would not have been any insanity defense. Simply killing the children was not why she was found insane, it was the _reason_ she gave for killing the children that she was found insane. The jury had to evaluate if being told by God to kill her children made her insane, part of answering that question is asking whether God speaks to people and if God does, what kinds of things would God say. (of course, if you don't think God speaks to people or don't think there is a God, the issue is trivial)

And on what basis do you make this determination? There is a clear instance in the OT of God asking someone to kill their child and expecting them to seriously carry it out. Was Abraham insane for raising a knife with the intention of slitting his sons' throat? There is no indication that Abraham was not ready, willing and able to carry out the action. Only the angels voice stayed his hand at the last possible moment as he was raising the knife.

Perhaps the woman expected an angel to stop her hand as it descended on the first child. (granted that after the first killing she could not have expected this) If the point of the Abraham story was to test his faith, perhaps she felt this was a test of her faith.

We will probably never know exactly what was going on in her head, but the point is that unless you just ignore the Abraham story you can't eliminate that God might have told her to kill her children.