|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 1, 2009 20:11:43 GMT -5
Come now. Shouldn't we examine both sides of this? Maybe we should wait and see if he does come back?
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Apr 2, 2009 23:24:39 GMT -5
Am I the only one who finds it deplorable that they were actually expecting a year old baby to even have the ability to say "Amen"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Trevelyan on Apr 3, 2009 2:25:19 GMT -5
Am I the only one who finds it deplorable that they were actually expecting a year old baby to even have the ability to say "Amen"? Oh no, that was just pretty much overshadowed by the whole being starved to death thing. You can only take so much WTF before your brain shuts down. |
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 3, 2009 3:12:29 GMT -5
Even if the child doesn't get resurrected, why the hell is she getting a suspended sentence? Because religion gets a free pass, even fucking insane cults. Exactly. It's precisely this kind of behaviour that infuriates me about organized religions. Only through "tolerance of all religions" and the hypocricy that would go along with people who believe a carpenter came back from crucifixion calling this story ridiculous can this kind of madness happen. "I believe a man named jesus christ was god AND his own son bounced around for three decades being a hippie, resurrected people from the dead, was nailed to a board and died but then came back from the dead himself some three days later accompanied by hundreds of resurrected dead saints and then he took an escalator to heaven. But this lady is ka-razy!" The sad thing is they will most likely never realize how fucking ridiculous any of it really is. Because some guy told them that some guy existed at some point and did stuff, so that stuff is true... but leprechauns? How preposterous! It's just a fairy tale used to scare ignorant peasants, it's not really true!! What did she do? She was faithful. She prayed. She believed without proof that things would happen if she wished for it hard enough. As a result, someone died a horrible death. And since that behaviour was religion based, she is given the benefit of the doubt that her god still might wake up and zombify her dead child. ONLY sick shit like religion can bring about this level of twisted thinking, this excusing of horrid crimes, this benefit of the doubt for something that has NEVER been proven to have EVER happened in the history of ANY religion in the fucking world, since the beginning of fucking time! How fucking hard is it to see that grown, adult, civilized, educated, lawmaking people are giving credence to reprehensibly torturous fantasy and criminal, and I'm talking sociopathic-level, delusion? What the fuck is wrong with you, Maryland? When is "religious tolerance" going to stop giving credence to insanity? Go home and worship whatever the fuck you want, but if your god can't find a way to save your child when all he needed was some god-damned Cheerio's and a NON-psychotic mother, then your god is fucking broken. You have to job pretty far down the food chain to find animals that willingly starve their own offspring when food is more than readily available. |
|
Maronan
New Member
Temporarily Without Avatar
Posts: 24 
|
Post by Maronan on Apr 3, 2009 3:42:13 GMT -5
Assuming my reading of the thing is correct (which it may not be; I'm up at 4:30 AM and it's really crazy)—
While I may not agree with it (and that doesn't mean I don't), I can see the argument for letting the low-level deluded cultie get off with a lenient sentence if it means nailing the cult leaders, and it did note that as a condition of the plea deal, she would be forced to undergo deprogramming and psychological counseling. If she's mentally unstable and her inability to think rationally was compounded by cult brainwashing, she's comparatively less responsible for her actions, and it seems a waste to lock up someone who could become a productive member of society through treatment of mental illness and removal of brainwashing— not to mention that she's really a small fish compared to the cult leaders responsible for her brainwashing, and if her testimony is necessary to convict them, it's reasonable to grant her leniency to get it.
As for the resurrection clause— though she's crazy to ask for it, the clause itself doesn't strike me as particularly crazy itself. The DA wants her testimony to secure convictions against the cult's leaders; being a deluded follower who thinks her son will be resurrected, she demands the charges be dropped in the event that he comes back; the DA agrees, since the "resurrection clause" is meaningless anyway— no need to risk the case against the cult leaders over meaningless symbolism about what they'd have to do if the impossible were to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by ostravan on Apr 3, 2009 5:20:20 GMT -5
Am I the only one who finds it deplorable that they were actually expecting a year old baby to even have the ability to say "Amen"? FYI, the word "Amen" was taken as the first cry of a new-born child by the Babylonians. Nothing religious about it! |
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 3, 2009 7:14:32 GMT -5
Am I the only one who finds it deplorable that they were actually expecting a year old baby to even have the ability to say "Amen"? FYI, the word "Amen" was taken as the first cry of a new-born child by the Babylonians. Nothing religious about it! Really? Very interesting, I've never heard of that. You have links or something? |
|
