- jab, you commented on my God in a pickle in Ohio piece with a phrase that caught my eye: “It seems to me that a version of the anthropic principle is operative here.” Whoa, ‘anthropic principle’? I could spend days at anthropic principle web site trying to make sense of all that’s there. Thanks for the piquing my interest.
You also wrote, “As for me, I suspect that intelligence is a property of matter.” I suspect the same, which has me dabbling in all sorts of places trying to understand quantum mechanics. But I’m finding that it doesn’t seem to matter whether I’m trying to tap the Divine intelligence of an anthropomorphic God, or the intelligence of the universe in the quantum void of every atom. It’s all in the asking, the listening, the understanding, the relying — the elements of true prayer — that make a difference.
- Esther, Laura and Dana, you all took issue (as did my wife) with my Andrea Yates piece where I contended that Yates “…was at some level mad at her controlling husband for leaving her at home all day with five unruly kids under the age of seven.” I didn’t mean to imply that it was only anger or vengeance operating here. And I don’t deny that Yates was mentally ill or sufferred from postpartum psychosis.
I’m saying that her environment, especially her relationship to her husband, was likely a contributing factor. As the Slate article said about mothers who kill, “… the destruction and control of something deemed to be a woman’s sole property sends a powerful message about who’s really in charge…” Her husband is a ‘nice guy’ by all reports, but what do we know? His niceness may have masked a degree of intimidation, insisting on having more children when she’d been suicidal with two. If she didn’t know how to argue with or stand up to him, or if was against her beliefs to do so, the anger fuels the psychosis, and hence the goofy thinking about protecting the misbehaving kids from hell before they reached the age of reason.
- Dana, you noted that “…her husband was told not to leave her alone with those kids and he didn’t listen. I want to know why he isn’t being prosecuted as an accessory to murder.” Probably not an accessory to murder, unless there was evidence that he was plotting with her. But what about gross negligence?
In any case, I think your point adds credence to mine. If Andrea knew her husband wasn’t supposed to leave her alone with the kids but did anyway, wouldn’t that add fuel to whatever emotions might have been contributing to her psychosis? And why would she continue to home-school the children during this time? Her honest desire? I’d doubt it. Add to this the possibility that he was having an affair at work (as a dismissed juror candidate contended), that would’ve added further fuel to her repressed anger and feelings of desperation.