Monday, July 31, 2006
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Yate's Trial
Andrea Yates judged not guilty, by reason of insanity. It was this case, in particular the miscarriage of justice in a judicial pronouncement of “insane, but guilty”, that prompted me towards my current research interest: “Sin and Sanity in 19th century America.” Strangely, I find this verdict (almost) as unsatisfying as the first. At first my interest in the case was stoked by the callousness of some theological commentators on the case; specifically, a discussion of the Society of Christian Philosophers over whether some one with diminished will or reason could even be considered a “person.” The conversations were carried on from the raving lunacy of the syllogism (as if one could understand such a dark mystery of human fragility through A causes B (mitigated by C only if D, E, and F). I then turned to the public debate
The National Review blamed feminism. They satirized a letter from NOW. “Stop Persecuting Andrea,” it read, “defend her liberating views on the origin of human life. Fight our culture’s war on women.” It is time that the world gets the message, “a home paid for by a man is no place for a woman.” Yates was far from a feminist. She accepted the control of her husband including his command that she only have one friend. Yet, the Review lampooned NOW in part because its members did defend Andrea Yates – donations came in to help defray her legal bills and dozens of famous women recounted their experience with post-partum depression and the rigors of motherhood. While not condoning her actions, they could sympathize.
Many implicated the Yates’s Christianity, faulting the biblical narrative of Abraham, belief in demons and hell, and the crazy itinerant preacher who convinced Andrea that bad mothers are witches. Others blamed Randy Yates, Andrea’s husband, and the “conservative Christian culture that continues to empower controlling and abusive husbands.”
Some conservative Christians, most notably James Dobson, defended the validity of Andrea’s illness on the basis that no well mother would ever do such a thing to her children. However, several other notable conservatives thought Yates was either a sinner or wickedly insane. Chuck Colson suggested that “scripture should have been the arbitrator of Andrea’s worldview” and if she had only read her bible more she wouldn’t have fallen for such malicious lies. World Magazine took a similar tack suggesting that Andrea was “guilty of not feeding truth to her conscience.” They argued, using the first chapter of Romans, that humans are culpable both for irrationality and the malicious acts which may result: “to despoil a moral compass by a history of small rejections of the light is to become more (not less) culpable for the immoral action that may result, though the subject does not feel guilty.” Yates could have resisted the suggestions of the devil just as Christ did: “when he heard voices saying ‘Throw yourself from the pinnacle of the temple…’ he rebuked them.”7
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the articles that circulated at the time of Andrea’s trial was how very much they tried to see in her actions a place for broader social commentary – motherhood is too difficult, Christianity is too oppressive, abortion is too accessible. Many mentioned post-partum depression. Few mentioned that Andrea actually was diagnosed with schizophrenia and rare post-partum psychosis. In fact, even in the articles defending Yates, mental illness played a secondary role in commentators’ explanation of her actions. She murdered because she was insane with too many children, insane and a conservative Christian, or insane and a dominated housewife. It is little wonder that the courts concluded that she was insane and guilty. It is not easy to explain insane acts without confusing them with sin.
The problem is hard to solve. Sin and insanity are difficult to distinguish. Is it possible to differentiate the environmental factors which trigger mental illness from the evil habituation which is the cause of human sin? How is the vitiated reason of fallen humans different from the impaired reason of mentally ill? What distinguishes the bound will of the cussed from the involuntary actions of the mad?
I suppose in the weeks ahead we will be treated to more commentary on these matters. I can’t say that I am looking forward to it. I have my own ideas on to theologically understand such matters. And yet, mostly I am left saying with
Augustine:
Crazy people say and do many incongruous things, things for the most part alien to their intentions and characters, certainly contrary to their good intentions and characters; and when we think about their words and actions, or see them with our eyes, we can scarcely—or possibly we cannot at all—restrain our tears, if we consider their situation as it deserves to be considered. St. Augustine, City of God.
The National Review blamed feminism. They satirized a letter from NOW. “Stop Persecuting Andrea,” it read, “defend her liberating views on the origin of human life. Fight our culture’s war on women.” It is time that the world gets the message, “a home paid for by a man is no place for a woman.” Yates was far from a feminist. She accepted the control of her husband including his command that she only have one friend. Yet, the Review lampooned NOW in part because its members did defend Andrea Yates – donations came in to help defray her legal bills and dozens of famous women recounted their experience with post-partum depression and the rigors of motherhood. While not condoning her actions, they could sympathize.
Many implicated the Yates’s Christianity, faulting the biblical narrative of Abraham, belief in demons and hell, and the crazy itinerant preacher who convinced Andrea that bad mothers are witches. Others blamed Randy Yates, Andrea’s husband, and the “conservative Christian culture that continues to empower controlling and abusive husbands.”
Some conservative Christians, most notably James Dobson, defended the validity of Andrea’s illness on the basis that no well mother would ever do such a thing to her children. However, several other notable conservatives thought Yates was either a sinner or wickedly insane. Chuck Colson suggested that “scripture should have been the arbitrator of Andrea’s worldview” and if she had only read her bible more she wouldn’t have fallen for such malicious lies. World Magazine took a similar tack suggesting that Andrea was “guilty of not feeding truth to her conscience.” They argued, using the first chapter of Romans, that humans are culpable both for irrationality and the malicious acts which may result: “to despoil a moral compass by a history of small rejections of the light is to become more (not less) culpable for the immoral action that may result, though the subject does not feel guilty.” Yates could have resisted the suggestions of the devil just as Christ did: “when he heard voices saying ‘Throw yourself from the pinnacle of the temple…’ he rebuked them.”7
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the articles that circulated at the time of Andrea’s trial was how very much they tried to see in her actions a place for broader social commentary – motherhood is too difficult, Christianity is too oppressive, abortion is too accessible. Many mentioned post-partum depression. Few mentioned that Andrea actually was diagnosed with schizophrenia and rare post-partum psychosis. In fact, even in the articles defending Yates, mental illness played a secondary role in commentators’ explanation of her actions. She murdered because she was insane with too many children, insane and a conservative Christian, or insane and a dominated housewife. It is little wonder that the courts concluded that she was insane and guilty. It is not easy to explain insane acts without confusing them with sin.
The problem is hard to solve. Sin and insanity are difficult to distinguish. Is it possible to differentiate the environmental factors which trigger mental illness from the evil habituation which is the cause of human sin? How is the vitiated reason of fallen humans different from the impaired reason of mentally ill? What distinguishes the bound will of the cussed from the involuntary actions of the mad?
I suppose in the weeks ahead we will be treated to more commentary on these matters. I can’t say that I am looking forward to it. I have my own ideas on to theologically understand such matters. And yet, mostly I am left saying with
Augustine:
Crazy people say and do many incongruous things, things for the most part alien to their intentions and characters, certainly contrary to their good intentions and characters; and when we think about their words and actions, or see them with our eyes, we can scarcely—or possibly we cannot at all—restrain our tears, if we consider their situation as it deserves to be considered. St. Augustine, City of God.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Long Silence
Boy. It has been a busy couple of weeks culminating with Doug and I both preaching on the same Sunday last week. Sometime soon I will post that sermon. I went with Doug on one of his street walks this past Friday. This experience brought me closer to the heart (and the loins) of Toronto. We passed along the border of four of the major sex trade districts: "high-end" girls, "middle-range" girls, transvestites, and boy's town. (This disturbs the heart and the senses). We also visited some people at a harm-reduction shelter for alcoholics (they serve alcohol throughout the day.) Our companion on the street walk was a fellow church member, communist ex-pat, a one time writer for the Globe and Mail, and one hell of a story teller. I think Doug would admit that our friend ended up leading the walk with his ability to initiate a bull session with just about anyone. He was making fast friends, giving out his phone number, and talking like an insider about the shelters in town.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Monday Night Prayer
It is almost too hot tonight to pray. Lord, I ask that you would bless this experiment in life together. The heat makes it all too concise and clear that community is difficult. Protect us from irreconcilable differences. Give us the grace to accuse and forgive, argue and apologize, think new thoughts, and deconstruct our perspectives. We are more than two or three please let your spirit come, pouring holy manna all around, bending and breaking our flinted hearts, granting us the wild eyed wonder of a child in a garden fixated on teleology. Oh how things can grow. And we could grow, but, only with your help. Oh, husband of the good vine keep us painfully aware of what must be pruned. And please teach us to glory in each other’s blooms like they were are own. Amen
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Agatha, Andrea and my interest in psychology
I recently finished a ridiculous Agatha Christie novel “Trial by Innocence.” The whole plot depended on biological determinism. A mother of six adopted children is slain in her home. Potentially any of the children adopted out of situations of extreme poverty could be the assailant. They are all essentially unstable stock: cussed misfits, born swindlers, and homicidal maniacs.
Last week the USA Today featured a story on Andrea Yates the Texas mother who killed her 5 children because she believed Satan commanded her to do it. The psychological expert called on by the prosecution Park Dietz testified that while her actions sprang from delusion (Satan told her through morning cartoons to slay her children she nonetheless) knew right from wrong. In fact she testified that she wanted George Bush and the rod of human justice to rid her of her demons. Instead of being evidence of a lack of mental competence Yates aspirations were deemed by the witness for the prosecution to be a clear sign that she knew right from wrong. Dietz asserts,
“Under Texas law, if a mentally ill person commits a murder in response to command hallucinations from God, they would surely be insane," he said. "If they did it at the direction of the chief of police, they are arguably insane. If they believed it at the direction of a gang leader, at the direction of Napoleon, at the direction of Satan, they are not insane. Gang leaders, Napoleon and Satan do not have moral authority in Texas.”
Use your delusions I guess. The situation is made all the less clear cut by the recognition that Yates believed that God was using her sinful act as an avenue for the salvation of the children. She would face civic punishment (which would incidently rid her of the Satan within.) They would merit eternal life (having been sacrificed before the age of accountability.) That such thought patterns represent a knowledge of right and wrong is ludicrous. Her civic punishment might be fine with Andrea Yates and Park Dietz but it ain’t justice. While, I could never embrace the absolute determinism of Agatha I nonetheless believe that insanity exists and sometimes in our fallen world people are not strictly responsible for their actions. In part we have a judicial system precisely to arbitrate these sorts of exceptional situations. Pandemic fears of the abuse of the insanity defense was born in large part as a reaction to the eugenic thinking represented by Christie in her novel. It is time to snapback from the long arch of this backlash. Justice demands that we do so.
Last week the USA Today featured a story on Andrea Yates the Texas mother who killed her 5 children because she believed Satan commanded her to do it. The psychological expert called on by the prosecution Park Dietz testified that while her actions sprang from delusion (Satan told her through morning cartoons to slay her children she nonetheless) knew right from wrong. In fact she testified that she wanted George Bush and the rod of human justice to rid her of her demons. Instead of being evidence of a lack of mental competence Yates aspirations were deemed by the witness for the prosecution to be a clear sign that she knew right from wrong. Dietz asserts,
“Under Texas law, if a mentally ill person commits a murder in response to command hallucinations from God, they would surely be insane," he said. "If they did it at the direction of the chief of police, they are arguably insane. If they believed it at the direction of a gang leader, at the direction of Napoleon, at the direction of Satan, they are not insane. Gang leaders, Napoleon and Satan do not have moral authority in Texas.”
Use your delusions I guess. The situation is made all the less clear cut by the recognition that Yates believed that God was using her sinful act as an avenue for the salvation of the children. She would face civic punishment (which would incidently rid her of the Satan within.) They would merit eternal life (having been sacrificed before the age of accountability.) That such thought patterns represent a knowledge of right and wrong is ludicrous. Her civic punishment might be fine with Andrea Yates and Park Dietz but it ain’t justice. While, I could never embrace the absolute determinism of Agatha I nonetheless believe that insanity exists and sometimes in our fallen world people are not strictly responsible for their actions. In part we have a judicial system precisely to arbitrate these sorts of exceptional situations. Pandemic fears of the abuse of the insanity defense was born in large part as a reaction to the eugenic thinking represented by Christie in her novel. It is time to snapback from the long arch of this backlash. Justice demands that we do so.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Community News
Jodie and Doug became members of TUMC (Toronto United Mennonite Church) last Sunday.
They also recently trekked to California and Oregon for vacation. While there they attended John and Brooke's wedding and got a chance to catch up with Jessica, Angie, Anne, Naji, Jonathan, Sebastian, and Emmanuel.
Doug is moving to a 3/4 time position working with the homeless as the street pastor for Lazarus Rising.
Simeon is adding words to his vocabulary by the scores every week. This Sunday he managed to smash a score of glasses all over the church floor during coffee hour. He recently got his first hair cut and enjoyed time spent with Grammi, Grampi, Nana, and Uncle Jeff out in California.
Johanna enjoyed being a flower girl in John and Brooke's and Uncle Jeff and Aunt Cyndia's wedding. She is planning ahead already to her next visit to Grandma's at Christmas and to her own wedding.
Steve is becoming more and more at ease living with us crazy kids and continue to remain very active at Sanctuary.
Angela is enjoying mothering Jacob, gardening, and soccer (watching and playing.)
Ben and Angela are doing and are doing a good job making friends amongst the neighbors. They enjoy worshipping at Parkdale Neighborhood church and revel in the unexpected there (for instance just this week someone asked "can I get some butter with this bread" when they were having communion.
Jacob is sitting, verbalizing, smiling and giggling, and all-in-all getting to be a very big boy.
Jodie and Angela are excitedly planning a trip to Alberta to see Heather, Mike and Yana.
They also recently trekked to California and Oregon for vacation. While there they attended John and Brooke's wedding and got a chance to catch up with Jessica, Angie, Anne, Naji, Jonathan, Sebastian, and Emmanuel.
Doug is moving to a 3/4 time position working with the homeless as the street pastor for Lazarus Rising.
Simeon is adding words to his vocabulary by the scores every week. This Sunday he managed to smash a score of glasses all over the church floor during coffee hour. He recently got his first hair cut and enjoyed time spent with Grammi, Grampi, Nana, and Uncle Jeff out in California.
Johanna enjoyed being a flower girl in John and Brooke's and Uncle Jeff and Aunt Cyndia's wedding. She is planning ahead already to her next visit to Grandma's at Christmas and to her own wedding.
Steve is becoming more and more at ease living with us crazy kids and continue to remain very active at Sanctuary.
Angela is enjoying mothering Jacob, gardening, and soccer (watching and playing.)
Ben and Angela are doing and are doing a good job making friends amongst the neighbors. They enjoy worshipping at Parkdale Neighborhood church and revel in the unexpected there (for instance just this week someone asked "can I get some butter with this bread" when they were having communion.
Jacob is sitting, verbalizing, smiling and giggling, and all-in-all getting to be a very big boy.
Jodie and Angela are excitedly planning a trip to Alberta to see Heather, Mike and Yana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)