Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

"How Many Jews Did Mama Kill?"
Some children's mommies are librarians. Some children's mommies are doctors. Some children's mommies stay at home all day and read them stories. And some children's mommies -- some Islamic children's mommies -- blow themselves up.

Here, from MEMRI, is how sicko primitives raise their children:

Interviewer: "Let's talk with the two children of the jihad-fighting martyrdom-seeker Rim Al-Riyashi, Dhoha and Muhammad. Dhoha, you love Mama, right? Where did Mama go?"

Dhoha: "To Paradise."

Interviewer: "What did Mama do?"

Dhoha: "She committed martyrdom."

Interviewer: "She killed Jews, right?"

Interviewer: "How many did she kill, Muhammad?"

Muhammad: "Huh?"

Interviewer: "How many Jews did Mama kill?"

Muhammad: "This many... "

Interviewer: "How many is that?"

Muhammad: "Five."

Interviewer: "Do you love Mama? Do you miss Mama?

"Where is Mama, Muhammad?"

Muhammad: "In Paradise."

Interviewer: "Dhoha, what would you like to recite for us?"

Dhoha: "In the name of Allah the Merciful the Compassionate: 'When comes the help of Allah, and victory, and you see people entering the religion of Allah in troops, then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness, for He is ever ready to show mercy.'"

via Jihadwatch

Posted by aalkon at March 15, 2007 11:53 AM


Bloody hell...I think I am going to be sick

Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 5:05 AM

You reminds me of footage I have seen of journalists talking to little kids from Mississippi. The most alien/vituperative things coming out of the mouths of five year old kids...


Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 5:10 AM

The leaders of Islam know the power of starting young with the propaganda.

Posted by: doombuggy at March 15, 2007 5:49 AM

I'm with Dawkins, who says it's wrong to indoctrinate children with religion -- any religion:

Dawkins pointed to the example of Protestant fundamentalists in Belfast spitting at young Catholic girls merely because their parents labeled them Catholic.

He said these labels also preclude children from making independent decisions as adults regarding their beliefs.

“Religion should be something for children to choose or not when they become old enough to do so,” Dawkins said. “The child is not [naturally] a Christian child, but a child of Christian parents.”

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 15, 2007 6:59 AM

I would extend that to any sort of indoctrination.

As parents, we obviously need to teach our children our values (what is right and wrong). There are certain things that I believe most right-thinking (grin) people would believe are unassailable (e.g. the core tenets of the U.S. Constitution). If you do not, than you have kids turning into adults with no proper foundation for living in a civilized society.

Due to the active political/campaign part of my life, my six-year-old periodically asks me about political parties. It is a subject that I approach carefully, but generally I tell him that:

1. He is too young to need to decide what party he wants to be in when he grows up.

2. I was originally a Dem, but became a Rep some time after my majority and after a great deal of consideration.

3. He should choose what party (or religion or favorite basketball team or whatever) only after he has honestly examined the issues from different sides, given proper consideration to all points of view and utilized proper logic to form the basis for his eventual position. (This obviously stated in six-year-old terms.)

Whenever I see imagery of children inculcated into a particular thought pattern with no opposing viewpoint every considered, I just shudder. (Images of children in the west bank cheering and dancing in the streets on 9/11/2001 or children wearing Klan garb -

Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 7:24 AM

oops...the URL for the picture got screwed up...

Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 7:25 AM

I agree with Dawkins and add Dennett's idea on teaching kids the world's religions in every school in the USA. The basic tennets, history and criticisms of the various faiths.

Only one slight problem, it wouldn't have a much impact with home schooled kids and certain religious private schools.

Posted by: Joe at March 15, 2007 8:14 AM


Posted by: Joe at March 15, 2007 8:15 AM

As parents, we obviously need to teach our children our values (what is right and wrong).

Isn't that what the klansman is doing? And whoever was behind the opening post?

People say we need to teach our children the difference between right and wrong. I'm not so sure. (I'm also not sure how to teach it, or whether I can even put it into words.) We don't teach them how to walk, but they learn it all the same.

Posted by: Norman at March 15, 2007 8:55 AM

Things that are wrong: Assaulting other people, interrupting other people, gross disrespect for other people, painting others with a brush which is based not upon quantifiable facts, but which is based upon emotion and "feelings".

If you do not teach children such basic skills (and follow such up with ensuring that decisions are made based upon logic and reason), than you are "raising" a child who shall most likely be incapable of functioning in a manner which keeps them from being societal sycophants (especially in today's culture).

I honestly hope that you are not a parent and that if you are not, you consider this issue a great deal more if/when you become a parent.

Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 9:16 AM

I am a parent - and my children, who are now young adults, are not noticeably less sociable than anyone else.

I may agree with your choice or right and wrongs, that's not the question. How do you know that you have to teach these rights and wrongs? If we have evolved as social beings, then it is quite possible that these values have evolved too, and will appear at the appropriate stage of development. I wonder, for example, if there is any society anywhere that considers bullying and lying to be exemplary behaviour.

By contrast, making decisions on the basis of evidence and reason does not appear to be innate, and does have to be taught. Or maybe not. Maybe it's just a measure of maturity.

Posted by: Norman at March 15, 2007 9:31 AM

Oh dear...

"I wonder, for example, if there is any society anywhere that considers bullying and lying to be exemplary behaviour."

Most assuredly. You can see hints of it in our own culture. You see more gross realizations of such where people have not been actively taught that such behavior is wrong.

If you leave the teaching of your children to the whims of "evolution", you are gambling with your children's lives and their impact upon the rest of society.

Look at black america. 30+ years ago, blacks fought (mostly figuratively) like hell for (actual) equal rights under the law. Much like many immigrants to the U.S. today, blacks did everything they could to get an education, a good job, raise their families, etc. After the demise of certain leaders (King, Malcolm) who pushed for self-reliance and standing up for oneself, coupled with onerous legislation which encouraged the breakup of families, reliance upon the govt, etc., ad nauseum, we have a situation wherein black america is riddled with crime, unemployment, etc. etc. etc. - WITH LITTLE DESIRE TO CHANGE THIS FACT. When children are not taught the difference between right and wrong, they go with the (immediate) easiest course. Parenting 101...

Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 9:45 AM

The universal law of most civilizations is: Obedience. Now anyone could debate the degrees of applying obedience onto their particular societies. Bullying or is it consensus building?

Posted by: Joe at March 15, 2007 9:57 AM

Joe: correct, I suppose.

Just because bullying (e.g. saddam's iraq) is accepted within society, it does not make such right. This is where proper teaching of values to one's children is of paramount importance.

I would be surprised if there are any people who visit Amy's blog who would believe that the state comes before the individual. This is a basic libertarian premise. (Personally, I tend to be much in line with Ayn Rand's premises.)

If one raises children without teaching certain basic rights and responsibilities, than one enables the proliferation of behavior which most of us would find to be anathema (depending upon the societal manifestations of such).

If an individual is black and receives condemnation or (practical) unequal protection under the law due to his/her percentage of melanin, than such is patently wrong. If same said individual receives condemnation because they have committed a crime, than such is correct. Without teaching our children the specific logic/reason differential between these two scenarios (as an example), we run the danger of having our children contribute to be irresponsible in their lives.

By letting children figure things out for themselves without giving them a rock-solid foundation for reaching conclusions based upon proper reasoning techniques, we fail miserably as parents.

Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 10:34 AM

Well I hear what y'all are saying, but I'm afraid it's going to fall on deaf ears when you try to run the idea past religious fundies. To a fundie, their religion IS the definition of what is right, and anything that goes against it is their definition of what is wrong.

We Renaissance people can say 'teach the difference between right and wrong, but don't indoctrinate them with religion,' because we know that if children weren't indoctrinated into fundie religions from very young ages, most of them would never choose it on their own.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at March 15, 2007 11:48 AM


So far you have only given a couple of very sketchy and hypothetical examples of something right and something wrong, and lots of fine words about how important it is. Also, there is a difference between ethical behaviour and legal behaviour - or do you think the law is always correct? If not, when is it OK to break the law? If I had to teach something, I'd want some general principles that can be illustrated by examples. Do you have any you can share? Most people use something like the Golden Rule. My personal preference is "live and let live," which I think is slightly better. Try an ethics quiz and see how you get on.

The whole thing seems such a minefield I don't see how you can "teach" it. Live it, perhaps, and give your children an example. But if that were sufficient, ethical behaviour would always be inherited, which apparently is not the case.

Posted by: Norman at March 15, 2007 3:00 PM

"So far you have only given a couple of very sketchy and hypothetical examples of something right and something wrong, and lots of fine words about how important it is."

Actually, I gave some great examples (e.g. my comments on black america). I also stated rather specifically examples of "wrong" behavior.

Posted by: André-Tascha at March 15, 2007 6:49 PM

When children are not taught the difference between right and wrong, they go with the (immediate) easiest course. Children seek to maximise their own happiness. (Isn't that an inalienable right?) But they lack the experience and maturity to see past the end of their own noses, so they seek immediate gratification without regard to the longer term consequences. If only youth was not wasted on the young!

As they grow up they gain that maturity and learn how to see further ahead. You don't ned to teach this - it's a development thing. The ability to foresee possible consequences is the basis of human morality. Because we're all different, we also differ in this ability and when it develops. But expecting a child to see consequences which are further away than they can see for themselves is a waste of time: they can't see the end of the summer holidays only 6 weeks away. There's no point telling them they won't qualify for a mortgage in 20 years unless they stop stealing cookies now.

What children will do is seek reward and avoid punishment if it's immediate - any animal will do as much - and of course, learn to recite verses that will stay with them for life, if you reward them for doing so.

It's a hypothetical question, but fiction is good because we can agree about the story: what kind of adults do you think Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn would become?

Posted by: Norman at March 16, 2007 12:46 AM

more of the same shit. really Ms Bolton, should we just kill all those damn arabs and then you could have the pool all to yourself.

Posted by: dave r at March 17, 2007 10:42 PM

Leave a comment