Maternal Instinct and Religion

[Pia Jesu]

We've all heard about cases of religion-related medical negligence or interference, but I'm trying to grasp how (better yet, understand the psychology of...) the California terrorist couple's abandonment of their 6-month old child for the sake of religious beliefs. The Laws of Islam state that believers/parents have an obligation to raise and care for their children and to bring them up as righteous, moral, etc.  The care and adoption of orphans and homeless children is complicated (with blood lineage, identity issues), but the law requires it.  A percentage of every Muslim's income goes to charity--and fortunately, to such children.  Another question I have is about the role of maternal instinct in the California case.  Countless scientific studies (using MRI imaging) prove that mothers are essentially "hardwired" in their brains to protect and nurture their offspring.  While mental illness--postpartum depression, for one--poverty and gross immaturity are certainly among attributable reasons for extreme cases of infanticide and child abandonment, how does religion provide a mental/spiritual framework that trumps human maternal behavior?  The media keeps using the word "radicalized" which suggests, at least to me, that something is done to a person.  Even so, extremist radical views are built on fundamental Muslim beliefs.

[CatherineM]

Good question. I couldn't do it, but there are US military parents in combat zones right now. Maybe they thought there'd be a telethon held for their child in Saudi Arabia like they did for the families of the 9/11 hijackers. 

[Luigi]

You're looking for logic where there is none. 

Radicals, or "true believers" as they used to be called, select relevant parts of their religious system to justify their actions. 

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Eric Hoffer's 1951 book True Believers: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. It's been republished continuously since 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer 

[marigold]

Yeah, I've heard the phrase 'terrorism has no religion' bandied about. I think that's probably true? But certain very strong forces can override even the most hardwired instincts, and it seems like organised religion can sometimes facilitate that; I don't know why.

There's martyrdom, which overrides the instinct to stay alive, and I guess martyrdom is what they believed they were achieving. 

[Pia Jesu]

11 hours ago, Luigi said:

You're looking for logic where there is none. 

Radicals, or "true believers" as they used to be called, select relevant parts of their religious system to justify their actions. 

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Eric Hoffer's 1951 book True Believers: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. It's been republished continuously since 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer 

On the contrary, Luigi, there is a fundamentally flawed logic behind their actions.  And since we cannot understand human behavior without knowing what goes on in the mind (which is certainly a pretty complex organized unit), I'm still left wondering about the nature/origin of what Marigold describes as the "very strong forces [that] can override even the most hardwired instincts"  I don't think we need to dissect the meaning and nature of Islamic religious beliefs--but would be better served (in our attempt to understand terrorist behavior) if we looked at religious relativism. In his study of the global philosophy of religion, Joseph Runzo (an American scholar, writer, professor) writes that "the 'correctness' of religion is relative to the worldview of its community of adherents."  This certainly supports your second point that selected parts of their religious system [are used] to justify their actions.  Thanks for the Hoffer Wikipedia link and recommendation of his book!

[Era Might]

I'm reminded of an ee cummings poem:

next to of course god america i

love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh

say can you see by the dawn's early my

country 'tis of centuries come and go

and are no more what of it we should worry

in every language even deafanddumb

thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry

by jingo by gee by gosh by gum

why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-

iful than these heroic happy dead

who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter

they did not stop to think they died instead

then shall the voice of liberty be mute?

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

[KnightofChrist]

On 12/9/2015, 12:16:03, Pia Jesu said:

I'm trying to grasp how (better yet, understand the psychology of...) the California terrorist couple's abandonment of their 6-month old child for the sake of religious beliefs.

I've questioned whether or not the marriage between the two was even real. I've suspected it was a farce to get Tashfeen Malik into the country. Now it seems the FBI and others investigators are also beginning to suspect.

http://news.yahoo.com/san-bernardino-attack-visas-wives-terror-205005565--abc-news-topstories.html

[Pia Jesu]

On 12/10/2015, 1:11:43, Era Might said:

I'm reminded of an ee cummings poem:

next to of course god america i

love you land of the pilgrims' and so forth oh

say can you see by the dawn's early my

country 'tis of centuries come and go

and are no more what of it we should worry

in every language even deafanddumb

thy sons acclaim your glorious name by gorry

by jingo by gee by gosh by gum

why talk of beauty what could be more beaut-

iful than these heroic happy dead

who rushed like lions to the roaring slaughter

they did not stop to think they died instead

then shall the voice of liberty be mute?

He spoke. And drank rapidly a glass of water

Ah yes...a classic double innuendo-laden cumming's poem satirizing the empty rhetoric (what the media now calls "talking points") he associates with politics and patriotism.  A post WWI pacifist (who did some jail time for his views), the poet sees the confluence of God, nationalism and personal ambition as a triadic disaster.  He didn't want history to repeat itself.  I'm interested, Era, in hearing how you think the poem relates to the California terrorist attack (government response...the investigation...media coverage...the couple themselves?)  Don't let the fact that I'm a former Humanities and Literature college prof bother you...

 

[Era Might]

21 minutes ago, Pia Jesu said:

Ah yes...a classic double innuendo-laden cumming's poem satirizing the empty rhetoric (what the media now calls "talking points") he associates with politics and patriotism.  A post WWI pacifist (who did some jail time for his views), the poet sees the confluence of God, nationalism and personal ambition as a triadic disaster.  He didn't want history to repeat itself.  I'm interested, Era, in hearing how you think the poem relates to the California terrorist attack (government response...the investigation...media coverage...the couple themselves?)  Don't let the fact that I'm a former Humanities and Literature college prof bother you...

 

lol...I had no idea you were a literature professor. I was an English major.

Well, I think especially the end of the poem was what I was thinking about in how this relates to this topic. It seems like the speaker is sort of off on this internal rant...or not rant, but he's inside his head thinking about this rush to the slaughter, and then suddenly he just pulls back, and he's outside of his head...he realizes he's thirsty. I think that's probably what happens, not just with being "radicalized" politically, but I think we all do that to different degrees, we get lost in our heads and our limited vision of what the world is at this moment, and we're unable to see the real world, the world where we're just thirsty for a glass of water, something very simple. It's kind of like people who kill themselves...if only they could step back a bit and see the bigger picture. But, "they did not stop to think they died instead." I think that's how violence works. In this poem it's in the context of war, but it's kind of the same thing...it's not natural to go off and slaugther people, even in the name of country, there has to be some rush that gets you to that point...and as we see in great literature like "War and Peace" or the Iliad, soldiers who survive themselves find the disillusionment later on that overtakes that initial burst of enthusiasm, like Nicholas Rostov running out against Napoleon and realizing what a little boy coward he is, all the faith in the Tsar couldn't change what was inside him, the realization of who he really is, not the vision of glorious violence that he bought into.

I also love that line, "then shall the voice of liberty be mute?" In other words, freedom is a double-edged sword, it's the freedom to act, to kill, to do whatever, but in acting we lose that ability to reflect, to think before we die, we get caught up in the act and those who can manipulate us to act in their interests, whether it's in the interests of a religion, an ideology, an idea, a country, etc. So in exercising our liberty, we become mute, liberty is silent, there is nobody to say anything when we are manipulated because we're all engaged in liberty. The blind lead the blind and both fall into a ditch.

[marigold]

The 'shall the voice of liberty be mute?' line struck me in that kind of 'dumb American' voice we Europeans often stereotype, which is instantly prepared to defend the land of the free. Like, someone suggests that gun laws should be reviewed, and this guy is like 'So you HATE FREEDOM?!!'