I was one of those weird kids growing up: nose always in a book, bored by sports, happy to go to school. This was a bit strange because my father had been a broken-nosed lineman on the varsity high school football team, was always playing hooky to go fishing, and once he graduated, went off to a succession of manly muscular jobs, working on the railroad, as a lumberjack, and eventually as an auto mechanic. I think he was perpetually baffled by the bookish nerd he’d fathered, but then, he had six kids and everyone of us ended up different, independent, and stubborn in our own ways. And that was just fine, that’s what good parenting is about — supporting your kids just enough that they can be free to be themselves. My parents did a good job.
When I had kids of my own, I also discovered how hard that is. Children can be wilful little beasts, but they are also desperate for approval. It would have been so easy to raise a family of neurotic, unhappy, but miserably obedient dependents, if only I’d been willing to impose my views on theirs, and withheld love to get my way. As it is, though, I’ve ended up with three kids who’ve each gone off in their own weird direction — sometimes leaving me baffled — but I trust them to know their own minds and be willing to struggle a bit to figure out what works for them, not necessarily what works for me.
So it was with a special revulsion that I read this story of oblivious parents giving their kids home tattoos. They were branding them with their religious identity, inking crosses into their skins, which explains a lot, since smug Christians tend to be completely blind to the freakishness of their obsession, but it wouldn’t make any difference if they’d been atheists punching scarlet “A”s into their childrens’ shoulders — it’s child abuse. It completely misses the point of parenting, which is not the same as indoctrination, and confuses guidance and education with ownership. Here’s what the mother said about it:
“I’m their mother,” Patty Jo Marsh said late Saturday. “Shouldn’t I be able to decide if they get one?”
No.
Children are your responsibility, not your personal sheet of blank paper. They aren’t there for you to scribble on, crumple up, and throw away if you don’t like them. Isn’t it weird how the religious wackjobs can howl about how a fetus is a human being that must be granted the privilege of existence, but once it pops out, it reverts to being a possession, a thing that mommy and daddy can do with as they please?
Jeez, next thing you know they’ll be demanding the right to chop off the ends of the boys’ penises. Or to take a chunk of broken glass to the girls’ clitorises.
Nah, nobody would be that crazy.
Maybe they’ll get some really cool prison tattoos as a result.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
‘Nah, nobody would be that crazy.’
Oh hell yeah they would!…tis what they do best.
Great. Another comment thread shot right to hell.
Ah well.
Another day, another moment disgusted at the human race.
Starting to be a scary routine for me… I’ll get my stomach medicine.
I think this line was left as the closing line of the article on purpose… as if the reporter was saying with an incredulous look: “I really don’t know where to go after that line…”
Also, seriously, how bad a person is the biological mother if the kids were actually returned to these people instead of being kept with her until after an investigation and trial?
There is just so much wrong with this story.
There’s this part in the Bible that says God hates tattoos. I don’t understand how they missed it, it’s right next to the part about homosexuals being an abomination. Ans shellfish.
Isn’t tattooing banned in the Bible somewhere?
Also while I’m at it, there has been one study somewhere that states “Alpha” males (athletic types) tend to have more bookish sons, and vice versa. Don’t quote me on this although that seems to be the case with my family and yours.
The parents were covered in ink, and so they say the kids were “begging” for their own tattoos. OK, that’s when you take out the non-toxic Sharpie and draw a nice little picture on them that will wash off in a week or two. What you don’t do is MAKE YOUR OWN TATTOO GUN and give them real tattoos, even if the tattoos are too shallow in the skin to stay around that long. They MADE THE NEEDLE OUT OF A GUITAR STRING. I wonder what they used as ink. The idea that the whole procedure could be considered RISKY due to UNSANITARY CONDITIONS apparently didn’t cross their minds.
I’m not sure that there is anything in the bible about tattoos.
Y’know… Like a lot of people, I’ve had a few odd issues with my parents over the years…
But man, stories like these, they do serve to make me oddly grateful.
(/Yeah, Mom, Dad, sure, we did have our disagreements, on and off, now and then, sure… But you did not, so far as I recall, at any time attempt to tattoo a cross anywhere on me with the end of a guitar string. And I would like to thank both of you for that.)
Hmm, forgive me if I read this wrong but it seems more of a case of really stupid redneckery then specifically religious. The cross was to be like the guardians if I read correctly.
I will admit that the chances of the kids being returned would probably have been less if it was something other then a cross that had been inked but that’s another matter!
Leviticus 19:28 – “Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the Lord”
Apparently the babble does have something to say:
http://www.gotquestions.org/tattoos-sin.html
Btw, if you google “bible tattoo”, you get a bunch of pictures of people who have had themselves decorated with pictures of bibles. That must surely qualify as irony?
Leviticus 19:27-28
“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.”
@Celtic: Oh, sorry. I’m a bad christian too I guess.
I like that he feels the need to reclarify that he’s the Lord out of the blue like that.
The majority of men over a certain age in the USA were circimcised by doctors and that had nothing to do with religion.
It was the conventional medical wisdom in the period following WWII. Just about the only males who were not circumcised were those born at home in rural areas.
And of course Orthodox Jews who were not circumcised by doctors.
“If I’m such a bad parent, then how come they brought the kids back right after I got out jail?”
Indeed. Why did they allow an obvious menace and danger to the health of these children regain custody? What happened to the biological mother who complained about her two children being abused here?
More questions, unfortunately, than answers.
I am confused (behave)
Two “parents” – different names, apparently at least remarried, the female referred to as their “mother” yet the children go back to their “biological mother” who then (rightly) complains.
Nah – nothing wrong with THAT picture.
JC
I agree, incredibly dumb parents who don’t know their own bible.
But who probably shouldn’t be looking after children if they think tattoing them with a guitar string is a sensible thing to do.
First, they used actual tattoo ink. Secondly, I do NOT disagree with PZ on this issue, however, I also do not think they were Christian. Just because they tattooed a cross on their kids means nothing. In some places, that’s a gang symbol. Not saying they were gang-related either. Just that a cross does not a Christian make.
The crux of the issue isn’t actually that they tattooed a 10 year old kid (and others). To me, the crux is that they did so without the other parent’s permission. To play Devil’s Advocate for just a moment:
Yes, I agree that even if 10yr olds could give informed consent, the parents should have stepped up their parenting and said “I’m thinking not so much”. However, what would have happened if the non-custodial parent (I think the children’s mother–the father’s ex–is non-custodial. The articles don’t actually say for sure) actually did give permission for this? Remember, this started because the 10 year old went home to mom and she questioned the tattoo and brought charges up against the father for it.
So what if this mother actually consented? Would we even be hearing about it?
I’ve got 6 tattoos and my 17 year old has one. I consented, she consented (and her father is dead so I can’t get consent from him). In Florida, the law allows for 16 and up with parental consent. Most states do. So the 16 and 17 year olds in this are not in question, in my mind. But if the mother of the 10 year old had consented, would this even be news?
(I’m off to play mommy, so I’ll be back to this in a few hours)
~~Toni
Well, in fairness, if I were a christian apologist, I might make the case that the line comes out of a larger commentary in Leviticus, and in total context is more about not performing pagan rituals of the time, as they are an insult to god…
Nonetheless, the statement is pretty clear, in or our of context. And that’s the trouble with the bible: interpreting it can be as loose or as specific as one wants, depending on what one is trying to force other people to do.
On one hand, when i was an alter boy I heard priests use exactly this line and say things like “the bible is very clear on this”, but then I have also heard sermons where it is warned not to take this line literally, by itself, without providing the context, and thus making the argument that tattooing is ok, biblically speaking.
Just another reason not to trust the bible, and to trust those who use it to define rule of law even less.
Well, this should help when the rapture comes in 18 months or whenever it’s being forcast this season… When the big scary angels with their flaming swords (+3 vs. Minions of the Underworld, Banish Demons on a natural 20) appear, and are looking over the kid with a critical eye:
“Hmm, well, I’m not sure about this one. He did help with the gang-up beating of the autistic kid last week… might be a bad seed…”, the parent can rip off the kid’s shirt and brandish the tattoo, crying out “NO! He is MARKED with the MARK of the LORD!”.
The angel will have to nod and say “Oh, yeah, that settles it then. With that, he turns undead at, what is it, 10 level above actual? He’s good to go. Put him in the circle, I’ve got to get back to slaughtering the heathens.”
So, it’s a protective measure.
No haircuts and long beards only?
I love how the clearest and easiest ‘Rules’ to follow have been completely tossed out the window but, “those icky people scare me and God said somewhere that he hates them so it’s okay for me to pray for their deaths proving I’m a good Christian Barber and Tatt-master!”
Jackal #8
Looks like a machine was given to them. Guitar strings are a common jail/ghetto replacement for needles.
I certainly agree about the conditions. There are a lot of things can go wrong, and that’s before considering what ink was used.
(As a note I’ve been ‘home tattooed’ several times, but by professional tattooists. Yeah, illegal here in the UK too, but at least by people who had the correct & sterile equipment and in a clean environment.
As a second note I’m 50/50 about whether it hurt the kids. Discomfort during tattooing goes between mild burning and OHMYFUCKINGGODWHATAREYOUDOINGTOME!!! but this doesn’t figure. Still wrong.)
Yeah right. How can that be so? You turned out to be an atheist. If that’s not a sign of terrible parenting I don’t know what it.
Here in South FloriDUH tattoos seem to be very popular. I recently saw one very well made Christian tattoo which included the Christian Death Cult’s execution device, the cross. Now this wacko will have this tattoo for life which advertises the fact that he’s insane.
I always loved the guy with the Leviticus 18:22 tattoo. If he’d just turned the page …
Jackal #8, you have it right. A Mr. Sketch drawing would have been a much brighter idea if the kids really wanted (without coercion) similar markings. I can believe that they did not know it was illegal to tattoo a person in Georgia without a license, but I can’t believe that Patty Jo Marsh and Jacob Bartels don’t think that tattoos hurt, and they really should have known that there is a risk of infection.
The Bible: Fucking Up Humanity for Almost 2000 Years!
*Has ‘DCLXVI’ as a tramp stamp so had better STFU*
As much as I don’t like any of this at all, and as much as I agree that it is against the law in Georgia (weird in itself I think), I have to say that the choice of a guitar string really was creative.
A guitar string could be very easily sterilised, can be of pretty much the correct gauge (depending on which string – a high E might be a bit thin) and can easily be made into a respectable needle. It does not necessarily have to be the “used” end of a “used” string either. I commonly have many replacement sets that are both easily cut and cleaned – and straight.
Inks are an entirely different matter, but really aren’t that complicated.
Yeah – it was stupid over all – but I don’t think it was really that “bad” in the scheme of tattooing as a whole. Worse has been done. They could have done it with a sewing needle and house paint.
Frankly, I am kind of impressed at the little bit of ingenuity they showed. They should still have the kids taken away though – what they have in creativity, they solidly lack in common sense.
JC
It’s true, I guess, that there’s some benefit to that after all, considered that way…
I s’pose, in that vein, we could make a polite request of such folk: if you’re gonna go and do that anyway, can you please have it done on your forehead, or somewhere equally visible, just so the rest of us can see it easily, and be properly warned?
(/See also: How nature sez ‘Do not touch’.)
I also think that making tattooing illegal for everyone under 18 is feckin’ ridiculous. Surely there is a parental consent override to that one. Then again, Georgia is a place where you can’t buy spirits on Sunday…
Funny you should mention this, I’ve recently been made aware of an artist who is trying to auction a picture of his to raise funds for unicef to fight this very thing.
From his site.
Apparently he has had threats made on his life merely for painting his picture.
If anyone can help, you can contact him through his web site.
sentence-writing fail
it makes me sad that you didn’t do this on purpose
Can you read? “Georgia law prohibits tattoos from anyone other than a licensed professional. Children under 18 are also prohibited from getting tattoos.” See? Two statutory crimes were committed. Hence the arrests.
“They MADE THE NEEDLE OUT OF A GUITAR STRING. I wonder what they used as ink. The idea that the whole procedure could be considered RISKY due to UNSANITARY CONDITIONS apparently didn’t cross their minds…”
No kidding! Giving a tattoo isn’t something that any moron should be able to do in their own garage – people go through an apprenticeship and training to become tattoo artists precisely because they need to learn about the proper sanitary practices! It’s not like pulling out a freaking Sharpie and drawing whatever you want – the ink goes beneath the skin, which risks serious infection if 1) the person giving the tattoo doesn’t know what they’re doing & 2) the person receiving the tattoo doesn’t take proper care of the tattoo while it heals.
Not to mention, getting a tattoo is a highly personal decision – ideally, it’s meant to reflect something you feel strongly enough about to mark yourself with for life. I wanted one for as long as I can remember, but I didn’t get my first tattoo until last year and I’m glad I waited (got it just after my 31st). I thought long and hard about what I wanted, talked to people who’s tattoos I liked and got good recommendations for artists, and ultimately chose someone who I knew I would be happy to work with (and who would be happy to have me as a client) because this first tattoo will not be my last (it took 3 sessions and about 8 hrs of work). What I have now is a far more accurate representation of something that I am proud to have marked on my skin for life than the tattoo I would have gotten at 18, much less as a kid (I shudder to think what that would have been – a My Little Pony? She-Ra? eek! Ok, a Autobot/Decepticon one could have been cool).
This angers me to no end because not only were those kids exposed to potentially life-threatening infections, they’re KIDS – they have no idea yet who they are and who they’ll grow up to be! Those parents weren’t giving into their kids’ desire for a tattoo, they were marking them like the kids were their freaking property! PZ’s quote about how “Children are your responsibility, not your personal sheet of blank paper” should be rule number 1 of parenting because sadly, not only Christian fundamentalists are guilty of treating their kids that way.
I just wanted to say that I really liked PZ’s comment about ideal parenting. It seems to me that the ‘unconditional’ part of ‘unconditional love’ is the hardest part of parenting. But just so my kids know, I’m planning on home-tattooing the words ‘unconditionally loved by my dad’ on both of them.
Maybe it’s just me, but I see a great future for the kid up in a clock tower on the UT campus.
Presumably to remind you of that fact when they do something that makes you want to feel some other way.
37! I mean “No True Scotsman”.
Yawn.
Could be. But where the two meet, angels fear to tread.
I don’t buy that they were unaware of the law. They did it secretly at home for a reason. I guess I haven’t seen what type of tattoos they have, but anyone with decent tattoos would have more sense than that.
@Celtic: Oh absolutely. I’ve been rereading the thing and I can see how some people can claim it’s the absolute ZOMG TRUTH… Because you can take a sentence and turn it to any kind of nonsense your imagination fishes out.
Being a christian sounds so simple…You pick and choose what you wish and then mold it to your liking and ignore the rest.
aratina #33
Tattoos are illegal until 18 in the UK. Ear piercing doesn’t have (AFAIK) a minimum age but all other body mods are either 18+ or strictly speaking illegal. For instance you can get body pierced for aesthetic reasons but not for pleasure. This was certainly the case a few years back and not sure if it’s changed.
Weird, but most of our legal system is!
My take on it… Well, a blanket ban under 18 is something that I’m in favour of. When it comes to tattoos if my opinion is asked I will try to dissuade as much as I can. It’s got to be something that you can live with, and you’ve got to be mature enough to make that decision. I know that age over maturity is somewhat arbitrary but I can’t think of another way.
As for enforcement? Ugh. Complicated!
Tattoos are an abomination unto the Lord, and defile the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Here, a lawmaker made sure that teens could only get tattoos with a parent’s consent, because they are too young to decide for themselves, and only when over 16 years of age. When it was pointed out to him that his new baby girl had pierced ears, and wasn’t that kind of hypocritical, he replied: “No, because it is different”.
@#36: Took me a while to get what that means.
“Shoot, roman numerals. I forgot what they are… Google… Oh well won’t you see that, it’s in order too. 500…100…50…10…5…1… Holy shit! Rome’s SATANIC!”
I love it!
And as an added convenience, the bible is inconsistent, contradictory and conveniently vague enough to allow this to be so easily possible!
Ugh. that was at #30. My bad. Friday and all, you know.
But…but…the tattoo was of a CROSS! Surely God wouldn’t let someone get sick when having his own symbol carved in their flesh, right? I am sure it didn’t even cause them any discomfort.
The content of the tattoo is of little importance. The action was clearly illegal and constitutes child abuse. That would have been true if they got a “my pretty pony” tat, or a portrait of PZ.
I feel sorry for these poor kids. What chance do they really have being raised by such obviously deranged “parents”?
Of course, it goes without saying (or does it?) that these children…yes, children, should be whisked away post haste from so abusive an environment.
It’s outrageous.
“Tattoos are an abomination unto the Lord, and defile the Temple of the Holy Spirit.”
Buddy, I hope you have something besides Leviticus.
“I didn’t want to be a biology professor! I wanted to be… a lumberjack! Leaping from tree to tree, as they float down the mighty rivers of Minnesota…”
@ Sven DiMilo #35:
Can you think?!
If the mother had consented, it’s unlikely other people would have noticed (let alone got involved in finding out whether the tattoo had been done in a legal manner) and the case would never have been brought, regardless of the fact that an illegal act had been committed. No case, no news story. Some crimes go undetected. A rather routine fact.
@ 50 “…or a portrait of PZ”
Surely if this occurred, and the judge in Georgia realized the evil-ness of Pee Zed, the parents surely would have lost custody.
Perhaps they would have been subjected to the gallows as well.
(Looks guilty…)
No… Honestly… My four year old said he rilly, rilly wanted ink done of PZ riding the dinosaur…
(/And tho’ I dutifully cut up a steel E string, as requested, I was hurt by this choice, actually… Seein’ as my tramp stamp is, oddly enough, of ‘My Little Pony’…)
@ AJ Milne #56:
I suppose there could already be someone out there with a tattoo of PZ riding the dinosaur.
@SEF: The crime didn’t go undetected in this case. You can’t turn a blind eye on a crime. And it’s a damn good law if you ask me.
And this is why I’m not ready for kids yet…
Not that I’d tattoo them with crosses at home! I’m just not sure that I won’t pull what my parents did and withhold love out of resentment that having a kid actually affects your life and the kid isn’t even perfect after getting (some of) the time they “need”. Bleh.
This is just so much worse, because now the kids will always have physical marks, not just the emotional ones they would have had anyway.
I think 18 is a little too high, too arbitrary. I’d probably support a 14-16 age range with parental consent until 18, or maybe a tattoo size and count law prior to 18.
CBS news has photos of the tattoos (itty bitty things) and the tattoo gun (it is dangerous looking!):
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/04/crimesider/entry6055269.shtml
@Aritina: …Owch…. Okay that’s not just unsanitary… That’s also an electric hazard. Reminds me of the shit my so called genetic provider made!
One of the kids had “mom and dad” tattooed too! With that THING!
@Michelle R
I think the point SEF is trying to make is that had the biological parent consented, there would not have been anyone to turn in the custodial mom.
I don’t see this as SEF’s endorsement of “turning a blind eye to crime.”
I do agree that this IS a good law though. That, and the custodial parents should not be allowed to be responsible for goldfish, much less children.
Hold on there… I’m fairly certain that if a teacher or gym teacher at the kids’ school noticed, or even heard about it through the grapevine that the kids were tattooed by their parents, yeah… it would have been their legal requirement to have reported it, just like noticing bruises or burns.
@ Celtic_Evolution #63:
It might conceivably be a legal requirement to report it but do you really believe that such noticing and reporting infallibly takes place? Especially given the deaths of children where major abuse has gone undetected, unreported or not acted upon by a whole succession of family members, social workers, teachers and doctors! I wouldn’t even like to gamble on the majority of instances of such tattoo crimes getting to court or news outlets.
This line is the bad parent’s equivalent of the bigot’s “I’m not a racist; some of my best friends are ______”, and is the first indication you’re dealing someone who’s none too bright. What, do they think every other idiot parent sets out to hurt their kids? No, most bad parents are just morons.
And we all want to waltz with a log driver.
#53 Moggie …..and in honour of that career choice: The Log Driver’s Waltz
Because “a log driver’s waltz pleases girls completely”
Beat you to it, Hypatia’s Daughter!
But great minds and all that, eh?
These two nitwits are from the county I live in. The local paper had the story on the front page, complete with a picture of the very homebrew looking tat gun. Here’s an excerpt from the end of the article.
_______________________________
The supposed “x” on their hand did not have any significant religious meaning for the family. Inv. Harrelson said the family did not attend church regularly. “We questioned them about the religious symbol, but they said it wasn’t anything religious. the dad just wanted to do something simple,” Inv. Harrelson said. “The dad told me his parents were religious”.
-The Summerville News,
Dec, 13, 2009
_______________________________
Read as: what they actually believe doesn’t matter, they don’t go to church regularly therefore they aren’t religious, so their bizzare, abhorrent behavior can’t reflect negatively on ‘True Christians’.
They had a discussion about this the other day on a local radio channel. One of the guys had an interesting point for the one saying “Oh, it’s not that big a deal”–what if they’d tattooed the middle of the kids’ foreheads? What if they’d tattooed the kid with a swastika or a big ol’ KKK? It was interesting hearing the other guy try to squirm around the point.
“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”
Well, that settles it. I’m going to hell.
Funny side note… this is probably the passage that the Taliban uses to justify the beating and murder of barbers in Afghanistan and the blowing up of barber shops in Pakistan http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/08/jihadists-blow-up-barber-shop-in-northwest-pakistan.html.
I’m with you. These people not only had tattoos, but also a tattoo machine, and they’re unaware of laws concerning tattoos?
Dang, Brownie beat me by one post!!
Great minds & all that……….
Crap, Brownie. That’s almost like supernatural or something…….
aratina #60
1st off… hand tattoos..? Jebus. Epic fucking fail there. Not a fan, never will be, they make you look stupid or like a thug. Almost as bad as ‘Pompey Dots’ – single dots tattooed on the knuckle. Pompey = Portsmouth in the UK, absolutely bugger all to do with the Roman general. ;-)
In response to your point I disagree. I’m aware that age vs maturity is always arbitrary. However it’s more of a defense of idiot children who want to emulate their retarded progenators – as in this case. I still think that 16 is too young IMO.
There are enough supposedly mature people who’ve gone out and got stupid ink. They usually get it done to ‘have a tattoo’ and is usually a thoughtless design or in a really obvious place.
Now there are arguments about the validity of opinions that people with tattoos are seen as inferior. Whether they actually are or not doesn’t figure but it’s definitely perceived that way over here. I cannot think of any valid reason for a 14 – 16 year old to get permanently marked in a way that will affect the perception of them for the rest of their lives.
These perceptions have been changing – got my 1st in the early 90s when they were definitely a minority sport, especially amongst middle class graduates like myself! – but they haven’t changed that much.
When I read that what went through my head was:
“If I’m such a bad guardian of children, why do they keep moving me to different parishes and putting me in charge of pastoral care?” asked Father Peter O’Fyle as he whipped his cock out of another under age member of his flock.
Or perhaps:
“If I’m such a bad husband, why does she keep coming back to me after I hospitalise her?” asked some tosser as he put the knuckleduster into his back pocket.
Or even perhaps:
“If I’m such a racist, why are so many of my best friends black?” asked David Duke as he tried to hide the noose behind his back.
It seems to me like this “defense” has been used somewhere before, it seems frighteningly familiar in form and function (and fallaciousness).
Louis
Great post.
Too many people consider there kids their property… Kids have desires and goals just like the rest of us: a parents job is to help them achieve them: not to impose there own on there little clones.
Yay! I’m in! Bring on the Rapture! :-)
“OK, that’s when you take out the non-toxic Sharpie and draw a nice little picture on them that will wash off in a week or two.”
LOL One evening when the youngest son was just a toddler we were all lying around on the floor coloring and I drew a smiley face on his foot. He giggled and the other two decided to draw on him as well. By the time we were done he was covered with cute pictures except for where his diaper was and his face. The childcare threatened to report me to child services the next . .turns out “washes right off” is not an accurate claim.
Children are . . . not your personal sheet of blank paper.
There’s a point, early on, where they pretty much are. If you’ve got any sense of responsibility, it’s terrifying.
Are they actual tattooed children, or should they be called the children of tattooed parents?
Someone is suffering a shortage prepositions.
Yeah. You?
When my nephew was 11 or 12, I explained to him some reasons why he should wait before getting a tattoo, even if he agreed they’re cool. (I’m tattooed myself: I was in my 30s when I got my first.) I think it may have helped. I doubt his mother would have okayed one, but “wait until you’re full grown” from a tattooed relative might have more conviction than “please don’t” from someone who doesn’t like tattoos at all. What I know is that he didn’t run out and get inked on his 18th birthday, either.
The latin cross is an explicitly Christian symbol. If you come upon a building marked with nothing but a latin cross, would you think it’s a church or a tattoo parlor? If someone gave you a book marked with nothing on the outside but a latin cross, what would you guess is inside, the Oxford English Dictionary?
For pity’s sake, what would they have to tattoo on their children to imply they were Christian, the Nicene Creed?
LOL at that.
I never really understood the tattoo-phobia in the USA and I’m surprised to learn it exists in the UK as well. I don’t think you need any more of a reason to go against public perception than the personal, uncoerced wish to do so. Judging whether or not a teenager has the maturity level to make an informed choice and understands the potential repercussions and the permanency of a tattoo is the real problem, and that is where ideally parental consent would come in.
Oops, I didn’t read far enough down the CBS report and missed the “Mom and Dad” tattoo which might not be so tiny after all. And don’t get me wrong, the cross tattoos being tiny does not make what the parents did OK according to the law or according to consideration of the children’s health and well-being, nor in my mind is it ethical to mark children with religious iconography just as I agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins that labeling children as being of a certain religious persuasion is tantamount to child abuse on the larger scheme of things.
I’m with #11 – this story seems more about rednecks than about christians. I have known plenty of people who weren’t particularly religious, usually non-practicing, who still wore cross necklaces and/or got cross tattoos. Crosses are just kind of a catch-all for even vaguely-religious uncreative people, like tribal symbols and “Chinese” characters pulled out of a “Big Book ‘o Tats.”
For what it’s worth, I’ve got a 3-inch aum on my left arm, but I’m neither Buddhist nor Hindu; I got it as an homage to George Harrison.
I do also agree with #20, that if the mother hadn’t objected, for whatever reason, this wouldn’t have ever gone to the police or newspaper. And who knows if she even objected because the tattoos were against the law, her kids were at risk, etc, or just because she wanted to get her redneck ex in trouble. I think either is a viable option; rednecky folks tend to have an obsession with punishing their exes, and kids are usually an easy avenue to achieve this.
All this having been said, they clearly broke the law, and put their kids in an unsafe situation, and deserve whatever punishment they get. And I suspect they’ll come away with spiderweb tats on their elbows.
Interesting to find the bible specifically prohibits tattoos, using a word derived from Polynesian languages that weren’t known to middle eastern people a few thousand years ago. So either that proves God really did write the bible, and knew the word would enter the English language in the 18th century, or it’s a modern translation and perhaps reinterpretation of some other commandment.
Hmmm, so hard to chose between those options.
I have learned the hard way that one must never underestimate the raw power of ‘teh Crazeee!’
If you can think of it, no matter how stupid/cruel/insane/life threatening the hypothetical ‘it’ may be, then someone somewhere will have tried it.
‘Tis an immutable law of the universe.
If you get robbed, would you report it because it’s against the law or because you want to get back at the robber? Is the case somehow more serious or are you somehow a better person if it’s the former and not the latter?
It doesn’t matter, the law was broken. Pointing out ulterior motives for the person who reported it is beside the point, really, and comes across as silly.
Leviticus 19:28 in the King James version
Not the best of all possible translations, but it shows that the word “tattoo” is not a necessary part of the prohibition.
“Leviticus 19:28 in the King James version
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Not the best of all possible translations, but it shows that the word “tattoo” is not a necessary part of the prohibition.”
But does this not mean that anyone using charcoal for art is surely possessed? Or simply a child who is casually drawing on himself? And what of the emos!?
Hehe I’m actually planning a Triforce from the Legend of Zelda series on the back of my left hand, but it’s on the back burner until I finish my current long-term project, a full sleeve on my right arm based on the Battle of Hoth, only about 1/4 completed. I do worry a little about the perception thing, but I don’t think most people see me as a thug for having tats related to sci-fi movies and video games. Stupid, well, that’s up for debate, but all in all, it doesn’t really bother me too much – I think people tend to judge me for being overweight before they even notice the tats.
To all the people recommending that the children be removed from the home: NO!
Removing children from a home is traumatic. These children were not traumatized by being tattooed. Holding facilities for juveniles are not nice places due to the fact that they are filled with abused children who act out on their peers and honestly, this is very small beer compared to what goes on in some homes. The resources available to social services is very limited and these folks are stretched to the limit. Turnover is high due to the depressing nature of the work. There is no evidence that these parents are abusive beyond tattooing their children. The message has been given to these clowns and I think it was a very reasoned response to the situation. And this is from an abuse victim himself.
BS
When my 19-month old points at my sleeves and wants a tattoo, I just call Uncle Dave and have a REAL tattooer do it…
Just kidding…washable markers and stamps is the way to go. She gets princesses, animals, she can have one tattoo or full body coverage. Then when she doesn’t want it, we wipe it off.
These people are loony.
This is called Rule 34
#65, #66:
Ahahaha, the Log Driver’s Waltz is the most Canadian thing I’ve seen in ages – delightful!
NB Hebrew copy with English translation here
What struck me earlier (ie even without checking the Hebrew) was that there’s some ambiguity over whether “imprinting” the flesh is only banned when in connection with honouring or remembering or counting or whatever the dead – as per the preceding clause about cutting your own flesh. A tattoo of The Grateful Dead (The Dead) might be OK as long as the band members are still alive.
Another issue is the precise intent of “imprint” (as with the disagreements over the no graven idols commandment). However, tattoo is quite a likely meaning (or subset of its meaning).
I think ignoring context comes across as silly, as does commenting without reading an entire post. Here, I’ll make it easier for you:
This having been repeated, I think context is more important that you want to admit.
@Jim #91: Well that’s a FINE hand tattoo if you ask me! That’s the geekiest geeky tattoo ever and I totally approve of any kind of Triforce.
Do you have a shield and sword to go along with that? Please tell me you bought one.
Michelle R:
No, sadly, but I do have a couple lightsabers to go along with the ESB sleeve…
For the first time I have a very small urge (which I shall suppress) to get a Bible quote tattoo. Leviticus 19:27-28, eh? But no, the irony alone still isn’t sufficient reason.
@96 Looking at Strong’s blue letter bible, it gives the Hebrew word, “qaaqa” for “mark”. If you look it up (Strong’s word H7085), it gives the definition, “an incision, imprint, tattoo”. So, I guess you aren’t allowed to tattoo, stamp or cut yourself. Sucks to be emo, I guess.
I saw that story in the news and shook my head over the complete and utter lack of common sense lady was showing. She was sniffling on CNN and saying it wasn’t a big deal. As one of the tattooed, I was pretty pissed at her, because it’s morons like her that make the two-thirds of the country that isn’t tattoed look funny at peeps with ink.
Lady, you wanna know why everyone is so pissed:
1 – Your children and his children think it’s neat because they saw you do it. On the other hand, in ten years or so, some of them will be trying to get jobs, and things that were neat when you are five or six, are less neat while job hunting. The hand, which is where the children were tattooed, is visible and hard to hide. And you owe it to your kids to not let them do stuff they may regret when they are older. That’s the responsible thing to do.
2 – Even if you still don’t get that you are supposed to keep YOUR OWN kid from doing regretful things, you ESPECIALLY do not tattoo a child for whom you do not have full custody. IDIOT.
3 – As a tattooed person myself, I don’t think that getting a tattoo should bar anyone from getting a job they are qualified for, but I think that tattooing is something you should decide as an adult. Since tattoos are by their nature permanent (but for laser treatments) I think it should mean something to the individual tattooed and not just be the whim of some other individual. Inking your kid with a cross (OR ANY OTHER SYMBOL!) WTF? (I have a black and red yin-yang symbol on my arm, which could be seen as religious, although the dots have been swapped with a star for my US citizenship and a maple leaf for my Canadian connection. I thought about it for ten years before finally getting it and I designed it myself. It’s personal to me.)
4 – SAFETY. Hello! When I looked into tattooing, I made sure that the place had an autoclave and used sterile equipment and fresh needles and was licensed. My friend Trav had his ink done there, and I knew the place was clean and professional. But you and your boyfriend decided to use the same home-made needle on all the kids and that’s just WRONG.
5 – Crimes of aesthetics. Most people who have home tattoo devices aren’t very good with them. And lady, your boyfriend’s tattoos suck. The line work was wavy, the colouring was spotty. Thanks for submitting six innocent kids to crappy cross tattoos.
And of course, the kids haven’t really had time to decide what they believe without their parents/guardian’s imposing it on them. (Want to point out that the lady in question seemed to think that a “little bitty” cross was just fine and dandy. It wasn’t as if she’d given the kids deeevil symbols–another example of religion priviliging itself.)
Now it’s Rule #34.
@#91 – I think a TriForce tattoo is awesome, totally geeky. That sleeve tattoo sounds like a killer though! I wouldn’t really worry about the perception a sleeve tattoo might create – I’ve noticed that once people actually take the time to look at a tattoo and notice the artistry that goes into it, it tends to alleviate the “OMG, Tattoo’d thug!” reaction. I’ve got a giant phoenix over cherry blossoms on my right shoulder, covers most of my upper back. It threw a lot of people I know for a loop, but once they actually took a look at it, I was pleasantly surprised that they appreciated the design – the artist made the branches and blossoms look like watercolor and the phoenix is styled after Japanese myth art with a lot of detail. I’m sure that sleeve tattoo of yours makes for a great conversation starter.
Burn in hell time for you: “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:28).
But MosesZD, don’t you know that Jesus made all of those old rules obsolete when he showed up?
Well all of them except for the ones about those damn queers.
Yeah I always love that. The whole “liberal interpretation” sock-puppetry and the whole the “Bible is Metaphor” crap that goes on… The biggest hypocrites are the “we recognize we’re not under Old Testament rules (except for the gays, got to make an exception for the gays)” is the worse load of crap of all.
The bottom-line is, and will always remain, that interpretations are loose and liberal when people who don’t like what the bible says want to live their lives as they see fit, while forcing others to not. If these clowns ever read the Bible, and bothered to understand it beyond their need for sock-puppetry, they’d realize the bible is clear, in a hateful manner, about many things.
For example, God doesn’t give a shit about fetuses. God also doesn’t give a shit about women and what they want/desire/need. God is one hateful, vengeful prang who is more than happy to wreak massively disproportionate punishment for rather minor things and, if he existed, wouldn’t be worth worshiping in any case as there are dope dealers in prison who are more ethical, humane and moral than God.
LOL. I was writing that…
I think a cross on the hand is a hispanic gang symbol as well, although that doesn’t seem to be the intent here. Actually, I’m not sure what the intent was here. Sheer stupidity?
Isn´t everybody overreacting a little here? The article doesn´t make it clear that there was a religious motivation behind what they did. The kids asked for tattoos, and being cool parents, they got them some on the cheap. If it hurt a bit, so what?
Anyway, who among you can say say that they´ve never gotten drunk and tattoo´d the bin lids (kids) with a guitar string?
burpy: Was that intended as an intelligent comment?
BS
If you’re going to get a tattoo then remember you’re going to live with it for the rest of your life. When I was in the Navy 40 years ago a guy in my ship got “Death before reenlistment” tattooed on his chest. That’s pretty funny when you’re 19 and have a couple of years to go before your discharge. But now that guy’s in his early sixties and has been out of the Navy for forty years. The humor has probably worn off by now.
I think the line
gives away burpy’s intent.
I might be oversensitive on the subject.
BS
Exactly what weighed on me most heavily about parenting. Enormous responsibility indeed, esp., if one is trying to raise freethinkers and critical thinkers. I still ask myself if my apparently free-thinking adult children got that way rationally or because their Mom seemed to value it so much…
I remember being in awe of the great power I exercised over these adoring, information-hungry small people, and terrified by how easy it would be to abuse that trust.
And even if you as a parent try your best to avoid implanting dubious memes, you find yourself spending great swaths of time undoing those implanted by well-meaning relatives, teachers, neighbors, etc. Not to mention the less-well-meaning would-be influencers…
Video of that story:
Check out the woman’s sweatshirt. ROLL TIDE!!!! :/
As far as these kids not getting jobs because of their tattoos, I have a feeling that this family only aspires to jobs where tattoos are considered an asset.
My father was a manly man. He dropped out of high school. By the time I was in fourth grade I could read better than he could. He mostly had small, menial jobs. He never stayed at one long.
My mother always made sure that there were plenty of books in the house so I read voraciously. My father would make me stop reading to play catch with him and some of the older boys in the neighborhood. He gave me a glove and positioned me half-way between him and the other boys. Then he would throw the ball over my head to the other boys and then laugh at me for not catching it.
I regret that there is not a hell for him to rot in for all eternity.
One of my best friend’s dads gave him a swastika tattoo when he was twelve. He later became a vicious anti-Nazi streetfighter who would brawl with skinheads, and his partner is a black man.
There is a case of a guy circumcising his own sons reported in the latest issue of Free Thought Today, crime section. I would cite it for y’all, but I loaned mine to a friend. Dang.
My father, husband and brothers all carried a card with the Leviticus verse about the long hair and beards, when ever they worked for a “christian” company and someone complained that they looked like bikers out came the card and that was the end of it.
However…the holy babble does contradict itself: Doth not nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:15, 16.
Interesting little chapter, 11, it mentions also that if a woman doesn’t cover her head it should be shorn.
Psst, Patricia: There ought to be a qualifying exam for parenthood.
(PS I don’t remember if I’ve expressed my sympathy for your bereavement directly; if not, be aware you have it in spades.)
Thank you John, very kind, I appreciate it.
Just when I think humanity can’t sink any lower, along comes an idiot with a shovel.
Diane G. @115:
“Excuse me, teacher, may I mambo dogface to the banana patch?”
-Steve Martin
But of course the FETUS fetish is all about ruining other women’s reproductive chances or at least tripping up their offspring, by forcing a woman to expend her resources to have a child when conditions are not favorable. Thus paving the way for their own offspring to outcompete.
It’s nothing more than naked aggression. Duh.
Aren’t pierced ears for an infant rather risky? And it isn’t done for the child’s benefit, but for the parents. (“Sure she’s bald–but IT’S A GIRL!”)
When we played league soccer the girls with earrings had to take them out, unless they were new holes (which could close) and then they had to wear studs and tape (but were warned this was also risky). The rule was there (and quite strictly enforced) because there had been some kids who had their earrings ripped out while playing (not maliciously, but you can go down playing soccer) and that kind of wound bleeds a LOT.
Infants grab at everything, so I can’t imagine that earrings for infants are terribly “safe”. Correct me if I’m wrong.
IMO, they really shouldn’t allow ear piercing for very small children, but it’s like circumcision–in some cultures, banning is a non-starter. (Until we raise awareness, I guess.)
Regarding circumcision; eh, nixing the foreskin and clitordectomies just aren’t comparable. I don’t have a foreskin and have never gotten the impression that I’m missing much of anything except extra cleaning. I don’t plan on circumcising my kids (they can decide later for themselves) but I don’t think comparing FGM with circumcision is very productive. When they start lopping off the whole head, I’ll agree with PZ on this one.
zhu-wuneng,
Male circumcision is a topic which raises many hackles here. There’s a whole bunch of folks, either women or (mostly) unclipped men, who get on their high horses and ride off in all directions, shrieking about child abuse and mutilation at the tops of their lungs. Oh yes, they’ll also tell you that as a circumcised male you will have almost no sexual pleasure because…well, just because they’ve decided that you won’t. Telling them that you do have sexual pleasure is dismissed as anecdotal because they KNOW you can’t have any because you’re circumcised.
I love demonizing Christians. It’s such an effective way of fighting religious bigotry.
What the parent’s did was inappropriate but the outrage here is rather outsized. If the offending parent’s claim that the children asked to be tatooed is true, then they weren’t forcing anything on the kids; they were accomodating them. I agree that it was stupid not to consider age of consent issue but comparing this to female genital mutilation is, frankly, retarded. And assuming that the claim about the kids asking for the tatooes is true (an assertion that has yet to be called into question) then Myers has grossly mischaracterized the situation in order to make his rant easier to compose. What he’s basically arguing is that, in order to not force their own wants on their children, they would have had to denied their children’s allegedly stated wishes. That, of course, makes no sense. The real question is was it right to act on them when 1) the parents are unlicensed tatoo artist, 2) the children were way below the age of consent and 3) they failed to consult the biological mother.
Also, in circumcision, one does not, as Myers implicitly claims cut off the “end” of the penis. What happens is that they cut off the skin that surrounds the end of the penis–a rather important distinction, wouldn’t you say?
And, speaking as a circumcized male, I’ll have you know that my happy meat works just fine. People who get worked up over this need to get a life. I’m amazed how some people treat it as if it were the same as female genital mutilation. That’s beyond retarded.
Yours in honest dissent,
HTTB
circumcision: exposing the glans to reveal, from the underside, upside down view, the thing that inspired the symbol of the love heart. gives ‘our lady of the sacred heart’ a whole new meaning. nyuk nyuk nyuk
That’s the spirit.
Xenithrys @ #86:
“Interesting to find the bible specifically prohibits tattoos, using a word derived from Polynesian languages that weren’t known to middle eastern people a few thousand years ago.”
This is from King David Kalakaua’s “Legends and Myths of Hawaii”: “Continuing the genealogical record, ten generations are given between Nuu and Ku Pule, who ” removed to a southern country,” taking with him as a wife his slave-woman Ahu. So was it with Abraham. Ku Pule established the practice of circumcision, and was the grandfather of Kini-lau-a-mano, whose twelve children became the founders of twelve tribes, from one of which the Menehune—the Hawaiians are made to descend.
A story similar to that of Joseph is also given, and mention is made of the subsequent return of the Menehune people to the land set apart for their occupation by Kane. Two brothers led them over deserts and through waters, and after many tribulations they reached their destination.
This would seem to imply that the Menehune people were one of the tribes of Israel; yet it is more probable that they had their origin in some one of the other twelveships into which the early Asiatic tribes were in many instances divided, and that the stories of Joseph and the Exodus became a part of their folk-lore through contact with other races.”
Not that this has anything to do with any kind of legitimate anthropology, but I thought it amusingly relevant to your comment.
Terrified…but sometimes tempted…
:-D
Come to think of it, quite a bit of “The Jerk” rested on the same premise…
tattoo in the wholly babble: not in there. the word is quph-ayin-quph-ayin, a doublet of the bi-literal stem quph-ayin. i don’t know what that means as a stand alone word, but the word yod-quph-ayin, ostensibly from the same stem, implies ‘cut off, dislocate’. the decree in question, imho, means to cut the body or cut bits off the body as a memorial to dead people – the most ‘unclean’ things in the Mosaic law. funny thing about Mosaic law is that it reads like this: ‘you can’t do this or that, unless i tell you to’. no wonder the xtians are all fukt up. btw, anyone who tattoos their kids should be, or possibly are, stoned:-)
Whatever circumcision is or isn’t beneficial and no matter if you’re male or female, you’d have to say it was a little more permanent than a tattoo. It seems only to be common practice in the US (as a hangover from a more religious past)or in Muslim countries but nowhere else I’ve been.
How come you need to be 18 to get a tattoo but your parents can chop off pieces of your private parts without any sort of consent at all. The jury is out on the benefits or otherwise of male circumcision. However, is it too much to ask to give the poor boys the choice?