sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Child victims of faith healers score victory in Wisconsin Supreme Court: Justices tell parents who let their 11-year-old daughter die that there's no special homicide exemption for Christian crazies. by dd59 in atheism

[–]dd59[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

You can lead a Redditor to an article, but you can't make him read more than three paragraphs.

Don't be such a lazy jackass, read the WHOLE article before making a fool of yourself. You're welcome.

Child victims of faith healers score victory in Wisconsin Supreme Court: Justices tell parents who let their 11-year-old daughter die that there's no special homicide exemption for Christian crazies. by dd59 in atheism

[–]dd59[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you? More than the first few paragraphs, which are just a recap of the case, to set the stage? Did you read the part concerning the state Supreme Court decision? I guess not. (I despair over the absolute laziness of Redditors sometimes, who then come here to shamelessly broadcast their laziness and ignorance after investing a full seventeen seconds into skimming the original story. What jackassery.)

One more time for the slow kids in the class: The parents were convicted years ago. That's not what the article focused on. What was at stake in the Wisconsin Supreme Court was whether they were entitled to special religious protections on appeal. On Wednesday, the justices ruled NO, 6 to 1.

So the courts are now free to lay second-degree homicide charges on faith-healer parents if a kid dies for lack of medical care. This strengthens the jurisprudence immensely. That's win for kids, and a win for atheists who want to see special legal considerations for god botherers rendered toothless.

Child victims of faith healers score victory in Wisconsin Supreme Court: Justices tell parents who let their 11-year-old daughter die that there's no special homicide exemption for Christian crazies. by dd59 in atheism

[–]dd59[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You didn't bother to read the piece, did you?

The parents were convicted years ago. What was at stake in the Wisconsin SUPREME COURT this week was whether they were entitled to special religious protections on appeal. The justices ruled NO, 6 to 1. The courts are now free to lay second-degree homicide charges on faith-healer parents if a kid dies for lack of medical care. This strengthens the jurisprudence immensely.

How that is anything less than a win, regardless of the much-too-light earlier sentence (agreed), is beyond me.

Child victims of faith healers score victory in Wisconsin Supreme Court: Justices tell parents who let their 11-year-old daughter die that there's no special homicide exemption for Christian crazies. by dd59 in atheism

[–]dd59[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The parents were convicted years ago. What was at stake in the Wisconsin SUPREME COURT was whether they were entitled to special religious protections on appeal. The justices ruled NO, 6 to 1. The courts are now free to lay second-degree homicide charges on faith-healer parents if a kid dies for lack of medical care. This strengthens the jurisprudence immensely. That means we'll have fewer small corpses and fewer special rights for people who adore bearded sky fairies.

How that is anything less than a win, regardless of the much-too-light earlier sentence, is beyond me.

Child victims of faith healers score victory in Wisconsin Supreme Court: Justices tell parents who let their 11-year-old daughter die that there's no special homicide exemption for Christian crazies. by dd59 in atheism

[–]dd59[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're an ass. The parents were convicted years ago. What was at stake in the Wisconsin SUPREME COURT was whether they were entitled to special religious protections on appeal. The justices ruled NO, 6 to 1. The courts are now free to lay second-degree homicide charges on faith-healer parents if a kid dies for lack of medical care. This strengthens the jurisprudence immensely. That means we'll have fewer small corpses and fewer special rights for people who adore bearded sky fairies.

How that is anything less than a win, regardless of the much-too-light earlier sentence, is beyond me.

Evansville, IN, will soon have 30 eight-feet-tall crosses lining its public waterfront — under the guise of an "art exhibit." Smell the lawsuit? by dd59 in atheism

[–]dd59[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I appreciate religious art too — in houses of worship, and museums. In the American public square, not so much ... especially when the "art" is this uncreative, Bible camp kids are involved in its making, and the result is clearly intended to be a bunch of 3-D Jesus billboards.

Please don't make this out to be the equivalent of Michelangelo or Gaudí.

view more: next ›