Do the parents and religious leaders share some blame in the horrible crime?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by oragator1, Aug 25, 2013.

  1. oragator1
    Online

    oragator1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,126
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,050
    So HBO has a new documentary out about the Cheshire murders. For those that don't know the story, 2 men forced a woman to withdraw a bunch of money, took her back home, beat the husband with a bat, raped her, raped the daughter and took pictures of it, strangled the mom, poured gas on the two daughters and set the house on fire. Beyond the obvious almost inexplicable horror of what these 2 monsters did, there was the fact that the police only surrounded the house and did nothing while this was going on (someone at the bank had alerted them), but also this about one of the 2 defendants (the one who raped the daughter and took pictures):

    http://kristinarandle.com/blog/the-cheshire-murders-from-a-psychosocial-perspective/

    So how much culpability do the parents (and by extension the religion) have for not getting him proper help?
  2. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    This is the sort of thing where it is easy to point fingers. Thing is, the parents are likely just as sick as their children. And chances are that one or both of the parents grew up in similar families. This sort of family dysfunction, etc tends to pass from generation to generation. And the parents, though reasonably at fault, are most likely clueless as to their own wackiness and likely also clueless on how to deal with the ugliness in regards to the incest, etc.

    In regards to the religion in this matter---unlike doctors and the medical profession---it is next to impossible to hold a religion responsible for 'malpractice', or even incompetence in regard to their methods of 'healing'. Since there is in many western nations the matter of separation of church and state. This makes it difficult to hold a religious leader accountable for quackery, ineffectiveness, etc. In any case when positive results aren't achieved via religious healing techniques the religion simply puts the blame on God. By saying that the reason the person wasn't healed is because of God's plan, etc. When legal system, public does attempt to hold a religion or religious person responsible the religion(or religious person) will no doubt cry 'religious persecution'. In America, there are a number of denominations that strictly forbid blood transfusions. Even if it involves a child of parents in that religion. and there have been massive legal battles on this matter since a child's life is at stake. Thankfully, the situation has eased up in recent years with new medications that can in some cases be used instead of a transfusion. Or the person themself can have a unit or two their own blood removed a number of weeks before surgery so they can receive their own blood during or after surgery(which would not violate religious dictate)

    I happen to believe that there can be great deal of healing done via religious healing methods. But a religion should do its religious healing techniques BUT also urge the sick person to also seek healing elsewhere(doctors, etc). Many religious leaders simply don't encourage sick members of their religion to seek other help. Possibly to maintain, increase the person's dependence upon the religion. IMO, God works thru religions, and that God also works thru doctors, nurses, support groups, etc.

    Most western countries attempt to try to strongly limit the extent to which govt can intercede in family and religious matters. This is good for the most part. But there are also sad instances when that inability to intercede results in tragedies.

Share This Page