ANOTHER fundamentalist mother kills her kids (last weekend)

[janx]

Mother Who Killed Sons Had Just Undergone Psychiatric Evaluation

Friend Tells 911 Operator That Rifkin Wanted To Kill Self, Sons

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- A mother who police say shot her two young sons to death before killing herself had undergone a psychiatric evaluation when a friend called 911 two days before their bodies were found to report the woman was suicidal.

The bodies of Julie Rifkin, 41, and her son Gabriel, 12, were found Sunday morning when a friend stopped by to pick up the family for church. Nathan, 13, was critically wounded and died later that day.

An autopsy was planned Tuesday for Nathan Rifkin. Police said Julie Rifkin shot the boys in the head while they slept in their bedrooms, then went to her own bed and shot herself in the head.

Colorado Springs Police showed up at Rifkin's residence on Friday after Rifkin told a friend, "I want to go out and get a gun and shoot myself," according to a 911 call the friend made.

More at link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4415823/detail.html

[monobrau]

1. Fundamentalism is a mental illness

Until we address this societal rot, the innocent will contunue to suffer, and true evil will continue to thrive.

[leftofthedial]

16. yup

and fundie members of a death cult are bound to be more likely to start killing somebody at some point

this family were victims of the little bushturd's economic policies.

Here in CO, the tech and telecom sectors (father laid off at MCI) have been devastated.

[Psephos]

2. If you think this is due to her being a fundie, you're quite mistaken

This is a good example of a tragic incident that neither left nor right should coopt for political gain.

Peace.

[janx]

3. Fundamentalism is a contributing factor.

Women are expected to be wives and mothers, nothing more. They can be isolated.

Here is some more information about Rifkin's situation:

The family fell on hard times when Don Rifkin lost his job, and neighbors say the smile on Julie Rifkin’s face faded.

“It all started when he lost his job and the only job he could find was out of state,” said Chuck Miller, who has lived next to the Rifkins since 1993. “That’s when we noticed it. She was frustrated with him and frustrated with her world.”

After months of job hunting, Don Rifkin went to work for Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, neighbors said. He moved into an apartment, and the family stayed behind.
(snip)
Warttman said Julie Rifkin seemed obsessed about making it on her own without help.

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1307239

[bloom]

6. Just like there being more divorce

in the red states - I think is partly due to so many people with the patriarchal attitudes that don't work out that well in todays world.

[BlueIris]

12. As if those patriarchal attitudes ever "worked out" for anyone. n/t

[leftofthedial]

17. thumbs up on that

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[bloom]

21. well yeah

It never "worked out".

But it might "work out" even worse now - for mother's that do the stay at home thing - there may be less of a support system than there ever was. And it may be more difficult to live on one income with a family.

Actually - I don't think there is that much support for mothers, period.

[bloom]

4. It is tragic...

but it's also possible that mentally ill people are more drawn to fundamentalism or that fundamentalism puts too much pressure while not providing emotional support or something.

I don't think it should be overlooked if there are correlations.



I don't think anyone is gaining anything.

But I am for universal health care - including mental health...

[Psephos]

36. Yes, it is possible...

...but your dataset has exactly one item in it. Inductive reasoning requires large datasets.

I'm not trying to be contrary, just pointing out that almost anything is possible, and just because we can't prove a supposition wrong does not mean that it's right.

Example: it is possible that Karl Rove secretly added angel dust to her bottled water, and the resulting drug psychosis caused her to kill. Who can prove he didn't?

We have to be careful not to let our politics filter our ability to see and assign causality where there is none. The effect is powerful, yet nearly everyone denies it could happen to them.

BTW, I'm with you on the universal health care thing.

Peace.

[theHandpuppet]

38. I think you've zeroed in on the correlation

Fundamentalism provides a very narrow and rigid set of parameters in which those coping with the internal chaos of mental illness can operate in an often overwhelming world. The draw of fundamentalism may be that it offers direction and structure, relieving such persons of the stress of choice, self-determination and self confrontation -- ergo, it may bring a type of psychological (if artifical) self-medication to those battling with the additional burden and confusion of mental illness. What most of us would find unbearably confining might offer just the opposite to the mentally ill person, rather like a narcotic.

Without treatment for the underlying illness, however, the brittleness of the fundamentalist structure cannot bend or adjust to any added, outside pressure -- loss of job, illness, children, divorce, et al. The pressures held back by the "dam" of religious extremism finally become too much and the resulting collapse is catastrophic, ie, it's strength is also its primary weakness.

I think you're correct in saying that fundamentalism in itself is not an illness, but that mentally ill people may be drawn to fundamentalism for the reasons I stated above. I've seen it with a member of my own family, who was drawn not only to fundamentalism but to the rigid structure of the military to provide the "safe" parameters in which to operate within a frightful and confusing world. (He is no longer in the military, but is still a fundie.)

The chances of fundamentalist religious groups recognizing and supporting (guiding to treatment) potentially ill members is very slim, though, since there would first have to be some recognition of just why mentally ill persons might be drawn to fundamentalism in the first place. I don't think fundamentalism, by it very nature, allows for such reflection and self-examination; it is the very lack of same which is vital to its survival.

[ultraist]

23. Religious affliation has quite a lot to do with it

People's religious beliefs have great influence on their behaviors. People who work in the child abuse field understand this IS a factor.

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0420/2004016590.html
Religious Affiliation and Religious Conservatism as Risk Factors for
Family Violence 67
Child Maltreatment 67
Corporal Punishment and Child Physical Abuse 67
Psychological Maltreatment 72
Child Sexual Abuse 72
Child Neglect 74
Outcomes of Religion

[ikojo]

29. Remember the New Jersey family that starved the

foster children in their care? One of the kids had been so malnourished that it was impossible to tell he was 19.

They were fundies who home schooled and were deeply involved in their church. Church members did not see anything untoward about the boys condition or behavior when they were at church.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/NYPost_parents_spoiled_girls_27OCT03.htm

[ultraist]

32. Oh, ya....that was horrible. n/t

"Church members did not see anything..." hmmm...They didn't notice how skinny the kids were? sheeesh.

The church members of the BTK serial murderer were shocked. :eyes:

I think people see only what they want to see in many situations. How could one of their own be such a "sinner?"

[Psephos]

37. Correlation is not causation

It's the most common logical fallacy I see here on DU.

Let me give you an example.

In 1997, data based on incidents involving one victim and one offender show that 94 percent of the African-American murder victims were slain by African-American offenders.

(From Crime and Victimization in America, Statistical Overview, National Center for Victims of Crime, 2000 edition.)

Should we then conclude that simply being African-American has (to quote your post) "quite a lot to do with" killing black people? Should we then ask the cops at the local precinct whether they "understand this IS a factor"? You know they'll be all over that one, nodding their heads solemnly...just like people who work in the child abuse field regarding religion.

Does something in you bristle a little at the simple (and fallacious) logical construction that equates race with murderous impulse toward blacks? It sure does in me. Same thing goes for the Christians. Inductive reasoning with sloppy premises and tiny datasets is worse than no reasoning at all. A lot worse - it leads straight to bigotry. In this case, religious bigotry. I'm pretty sure the world has enough bigotry without us adding to the pile.

This is a complex matter involving biogenic pathology. Mothers do not kill their children because of religion. They kill them because they are insane. If you think fundamentalism causes insanity, I would like you to meet nearly a billion Muslims who beg to differ.

Peace.

[jbane]

5. Mental Illness looks to be the real problem here...

I read both stories that there was a link to. It was clear she was mentally unbalanced but the fact that she attended church regularly should not make her a crazy fundamentalist Christian. There are pleanty of those nuts out there, we don't need to pad the roster any.

[janx]

8. Read the articles again.

She was a fundamentalist. It was not simply a matter of attending church regularly.

[patcox2]

7. And the suicide is connected to her religious belief how?

This really isn't a good example of the supposed, but so far as I have seen, actually non-existent link between fundamentalism and suicide-murder.

What have you got, with your sophisticated statistical analysis, what evidence of a link do you have? That Susan Smith killed her kids, and that an obviously crazy woman in texas killed her kids, making what, 3 or 4 incidents over 10 years in a country of 250 million people.

I am curious what controls you used in order to rule out alternate causes?

How did you frame your sample?

Did you do a chi-square test?

Did you do a regression analysis to ensure its cause and effect, rather than co-factors?

[janx]

10. Look--

There has been a spate of mentally ill, fundamentalist women who have killed their children.

It's an observation, not a study.

[patcox2]

15. And anecdotal observations prove nothing.

A murder by a "traditional stay at home mom" is likely to garner much greater media attention simply because it goes against what most people would expect. So when these things happen, you are far more likely to hear about them than other crimes. Thats just one of a hundred reasons that their is simply no evidence of a causal relation between the religious faith of these people and the murder.

There may, however, be a co-factor or other relation between them. They may be suffering from a mental illness that tends to cause both attraction to fundamentalism, and the eventual snapping and murdering. But that doesn't mean the religious belief played caused the murder.

There is some evidence that fundamentalists have problems because of their inability to admit lapses from perfection, or the fact that they sin, in some circumstances they are more, rather than less, likely to get heavily involved in therapy, for example (legitimate or of the quack variety) because it excuses their lapses. Fundies have their issues, but I see no reason to assume that fundamentalism causes insane homicidal episodes, if i does, it does so at a very low rate, thats for sure.

[ultraist]

22. There are studies that show a correlation between...

extreme conservative religiosity and child abuse. Killing one's own children is the ultimate act of child abuse.

There is also research that shows a link between religious fanatics and mental illness. People who are off in some way are more drawn to strict, rigid, patriarchal religions.

People can search under: Authoritarian personality type, conservative religiosity and child abuse and a number of other phrases to find the research. I don't have anything bookmarked, but I've read several studies related to this.

edit to add:

http://www.menweb.org/throop/abuse/claim-religious.html
From "Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73:

"A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is *whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes*. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). (emphasis in original)
References:
Brown, J.C and C.R. Bohn (eds) 1989 "Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse" New York, Pilgrim Press.

Finkelhor, D. 1986. A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Fortune, M.M. 1983. Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable Sin. New York, Pilgrim Press.

Goldstein, M.J, et al 1973. Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Los Angeles, University of California Press.

Van Leeuwen, M.S. 1990. Gender and Grace: Love, Work, and Parenting in a Changing World. Downers Grove, Il. InterVarsity Press.

[Maat]

26. This jives with my experience as a social worker.

One of my most notorious sex abuses cases involved a large family of fundamentalists - Father only abused one of the girls (his behavior showed that he was thinking about starting on another, I believe). Went to prison for years. Very rigid roles in the family (that 'good/bad' dichotomy-thing was going on also).

[ultraist]

28. I'm not surprised!

I agree, "very rigid roles" and the "good/bad dichotomy" stem from strict conservative religious beliefs and direct parenting techniques.

excerpts:

http://www.nospank.net/fortune.htm

But a surprisingly high number of reported child abuse cases occur in Christian families. Moreover, the abuser often bases the justification for their behavior on Christianity. A father, when confronted by state child abuse prevention workers, resisted their assistance and said: "What do you mean I can't beat my child? I'm a Christian." This Christian father who had paddled his son with such force that he caused injury, had not been confronted by his church, had not repented, had not sought help to control his anger and violence. He had been taught that his responsibility as a parent involves the regular use of corporal punishment and used it to the extent that it was abusive. Herein lies the problem.

The belief that children need discipline and guidance is part of fundamental wisdom of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Paul understood this as did the writer of Proverbs. But the belief that corporal punishment as chastisement will bring forth a righteous child who knows and loves God is open to serious debate. There is evidence to the contrary. Figures show that 31% of juvenile delinquents have been severely beaten by their parents, and another 64% have been injured by parental abuse. Virtually all convicts in San Quintin were victims of child abuse. (Dr. R. Bensel as quoted by Virginia Mollencott in "Evangelism, Patriarchy and the Abuse of Children", Radix, Vol 13, No. 4, Jan-Feb 1982).

What does corporal punishment teach a child? It teaches that a more powerful person has the right to physically hurt a less powerful person because the bigger, stronger person "loves" the weaker, smaller person. Physical suffering shrouded in love gives a very confusing message to a child. The child may learn that when he grows to be a bigger, stronger person, he will be able to inflict his anger and frustration on whomever may be weaker and smaller in his life -- especially in his family life -- and that this behavior is appropriate if he "loves" the person. This justification is frequently offered by adults who batter spouses or children: "I hit you because I love you and it's for your own good."

[Maat]

30. That's exactly what it teaches.

We don't spank.

As a worker, I didn't get crazy over an occasionally swat over the diapers or the clothed bottom. Many parents do that. I NEVER substantiated abuse over a minor thing. Heck, I even just put 'accidental' over a few borderline situations. I tended to just advise the parents where the line is - they usually got the hint then.

I remember very clearly (even though it was about seven years ago) simply responding to a report. As soon as I identified myself, "Conservative Christian Dad" went off on me like you wouldn't believe, saying that I, as the State, simply loved getting between a parent and HIS child. I said, "Oh, no, I was raised by conservatives . But I certainly didn't want the System to intefere in his life further; so I 'know you understand that marks or bruises would be crossing the line and give the State reason to intervene.' He got the hint, and we certainly never got anymore calls on that family (no marks as I recall). But I do remember him going off on me - to this day!

[ultraist]

31. That's really tough work

I did several placements and my internship at CPS so I worked there for several months and had nearly a full caseload. I had a guy threaten me as he blocked the door in his trailer. He had beaten the mother so badly she had brain damage. I will NEVER forget that.

The WORST case we had was with an extremely conservative religous family. They started beating their children on the bottom of their feet, thinking the workers wouldn't detect the bruising there and on the head. ugggh...it was horrific. (Repeat case of course).

I recently read an article linked on the NASW site that noted that 70% of CPS workers are threatened or victims of violence, as well as underpaid and overworked.

[Maat]

35. Oh, that was a rough case. I'm sorry.

To me, though, it was a great adventure. I used to respond routinely to meth lab crime scenes; sometimes I went on the actual raid (I stayed outside until the police had done their initial business).

I was in my late-30's/early-40's, and it was a great adventure.

Yes, people would "get worked up," as I put it. I was pretty patient, and generally didn't let one 'sound-off' bother me. I got to be pretty good at calming people down in a hurry.

After seven years of adventure, I retired to go back to law school. I graduated last year, and am awaiting Cal-Bar-Exam results (the end of May). I became more interested in the legal end of things, in contrast to the therapeutic end of things.

What are you doing now?

[ComerPerro]

18. But, remember, this is the moral majority

They are better than us, remember?

[Psephos]

39. Sauce for the goose

If there's one thing that defines our leftist opinion of our rightie opponents, it's that we are (better, smarter, more balanced, more tolerant, more moral, pick whatever you want) than them. Attacking them for the same rather unsavory impulse is - well, you figure out what it is.

I think we're always better off attacking them on principles, not on smugness. Besides, it's shooting fish in a barrel.

Peace.

[porphyrian]

9. It's rare for women to use guns to commit suicide.

That bitch was really fucked up.

[janx]

11. She wasn't a bitch. She was mentally ill and isolated from

her husband. She was expected to do everything. Then, it appears (from what one article said)that she insisted on doing everything, on going it alone financially and otherwise.

But she was mentally ill. She needed help.

[porphyrian]

13. Sorry if you didn't like my terminology, but I hold to my original words.

That bitch was really fucked up. Mentally ill or no, her actions were unacceptable. My pity response doesn't work for people who fuck kids up. I suppose it's a good thing yours does. Regardless, this is just another incident that proves there is no justice.

[janx]

14. Pity response?

?

If she had gotten the help she needed, the kids would never have been "fucked up" in the first place.

Understand?

[porphyrian]

34. You mean what you're saying? Yes.

But that's beside the point, because she did kill her kids.

I also believe that you're in error simplifying the situation as you do. We cannot say that by merely giving the bitch the treatment she needed that the kids wouldn't have been fucked up by her; psychiatric treatment is hardly perfect. Anyway, it doesn't take psychosis to fuck up your kids.

That said, lets fund the shit out of all health care, for everyone. I'm all for it. I just don't have any positive feelings for someone, insane or not, who kills their own fucking kids.

[ultraist]

24. It's precisely those types of punitive attitudes toward the mentally ill

that keep our society from addressing these issues and FUNDING preventative/interventive Mental Health programs.

People with mental illnesses should be treated and not simply condemned and punished.

[porphyrian]

33. I disagree.

I'm all for funding treatment of the mentally ill. In Tallahassee, Florida (capital of the state and home of Jeb!), a significant number of the homeless population living on the streets are patients released from the state mental hospital in Chatahoochee, which is about thirty-something miles away. Why are they homeless in the streets? Because there isn't enough funding to keep them in the care they need. Since funding is limited, people who are functional while taking their medication under supervision are released, at which point they often stop taking their medication, relapse, and usually aren't helped (noticed?) until they run afoul of the law or find one of the homeless shelters. I would love to see enough tax money go to the mental and physical care of all Americans, and if I made any money to speak of, I'd gladly pay more in taxes to do so.

However, I still feel strongly about parents that kill or otherwise fuck up their children, and sick or not, I'm glad the bitch is dead.

So you see, while I support mental health care and its funding, I also fucking hate child molesters and murderers, even if they don't realize what they're doing.

[e75]

19. typical

let be guess the recent examination had her put on Psychiatric Drugs

[iconoclastic cat]

20. And another one in my neck of the woods! (IL)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3570467

[ultraist]

25. I've been saying for a while...

We are going to see an increase in child abuse (including child homicides) & domestic violence as the fundie patriarchal movement grows and the poverty rate increases. Two deadly factors for women and children are: patriarchal systems and economic stress.

[Joey Liberal]

27. What is it with these Fundie Mothers?

Fundie mothers are killing their kids, but Rev. Dobson is just soooo worried about Sponge Bob Square Pants.