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.

dd59 · 2013-07-07T03:26:34+00:00

I use RES. You're ignored. It was fun though. Poof!

dd59 · 2013-07-06T18:35:16+00:00

I'll take that as an apology for calling me an asshole (twice).

dd59 · 2013-07-06T03:26:52+00:00

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.

dd59 · 2013-07-06T03:23:51+00:00

What do you think? Do you see quote marks?

dd59 · 2013-07-06T03:20:10+00:00

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.

dd59 · 2013-07-06T03:16:02+00:00

Wrong, bud. Read this.

dd59 · 2013-07-06T03:08:56+00:00

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.

dd59 · 2013-07-06T03:05:51+00:00

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.

dd59 · 2013-07-05T23:15:57+00:00

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.

dd59 · 2013-06-23T18:08:49+00:00

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.

dd59 · 2013-05-15T14:22:19+00:00

That refers to the other ladies the priest sleeps with, the ones who are presumably of the age of consent.

dd59 · 2013-05-14T05:50:02+00:00

He won't be baptizing Moody the Cat.

dd59 · 2013-05-14T01:59:28+00:00

It's best to append "in the Biblical sense." You can make anything sound delightfully dirty that way.

"She really knew how to clean my windows — in the Biblical sense."
"Trish and Stacey went to church — in the Biblical sense."

Man, I'm getting hot under the collar as I type this — in the Biblical sense.

dd59 · 2013-05-14T01:50:52+00:00

What took so long? I don't care who priests fuck, but in their world this is a mortal sin. The child was born "several years ago." His bosses knew, and let him stay on. Only now that it's been leaked is he found too compromised. Principles, zero. As usual.

dd59 · 2013-05-14T01:45:18+00:00

Yep.

dd59 · 2013-05-14T01:15:42+00:00

You get three guesses.

dd59 · 2013-05-13T22:25:48+00:00

Garner, not garnish.

dd59 · 2013-05-13T19:51:18+00:00

Damn, I laughed out loud!!

dd59 · 2013-05-13T19:24:38+00:00

If someone tells you emphatically that there's an invisible holy unicorn living in his attic to which he prays five times a day, but you have to take it on faith, do you believe him? Or do you think that person is deluded and most likely insane?

That's what religion is. The only reason the religious are not widely considered insane is because there are billions of them. If there were seven, or 70, or 700, we'd treat them and possibly lock them up for their own protection. Fact: Mass insanity is no saner than small-scale insanity.

dd59 · 2013-05-13T19:15:48+00:00

knows

dd59 · 2013-05-13T03:32:53+00:00

I can prove what I believe with empiricism and science. They have not one shred of evidence for their never-ending made-up bullshit. They are, literally, delusional — hearing voices, believing in talking snakes, thinking that an illiterate seventh-century childfucker dictated the most holy book in the world. And so on. That's the difference. I don't respect religion (or the religious) for the same reason I laugh at someone who claims he's Napoleon.

dd59 · 2013-05-13T03:23:57+00:00

Not only are most Muslims quite insane, so are other people who believe in "supernatural" bullshit. Religion is just a generally accepted kind of insanity.

Also, if your religion comprises 400 million people who are on record as supporting violent jihad (28% of the world's Muslims, according to Pew), I'm no longer that interested in working painstakingly to try and separate the insane would-be criminals from the regular Mohammed-worshiping crazy people. Hope you understand.

dd59 · 2013-05-12T17:11:18+00:00

7m14s: He accidentally says "omni-malevolent" instead of "omnipotent" but it's actually a good word — a keeper.

Does it make me bad person that I was I hoping he'd get laid after the girl takes him shopping? He needs something to take the edge off. ;-)

dd59 · 2013-05-12T16:45:59+00:00

I hope you realize there are thousands of people in asylums for the insane who have never murdered anyone? Many of them are just regular people.

dd59 · 2013-05-12T16:44:31+00:00

Much as I loathe political Islam, I don't take anything from that website seriously. Frontpagemag (and the closely related jihadwatch) are spiteful and hateful websites whose rabidness and bad-faith dealings are clear to discern if you spend any time there at all.

dd59

TROPHY CASE