Child Killer Aquitted --- More pro-Christian bias.

[thylacine]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/laney/040304_verdict_ctv.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/index.html

Deanna Laney killed two of her kids because "God ordered her to bash in the heads of her sons". She was aquitted by reason of insanity.

BULLSH!T!!! She killed her kids because she was an extremely evil person. And she was an extremely evil person because Christianity taught her to be an extremely evil person. People like this are not criminally insane. They are criminally religious .

It is time for society to recognize that religion and morality directly contradict each other. Deanna Laney killed two of her kids not in spite of her religion, but directly because of it. This type of evil is intrinsic to the very nature of religion itself, and people like Deanna Laney authentically represent the true essence of religion.

[andyfox]

Blaming god for when one behaves in an evil manner is indeed an old story.

And yet, while I am basically an atheist and have no use for religion, if I am walking down a dark alley, and I find myself being followed by two men, I would surely prefer to find out that they have just come out of church than not. [This is possibly the only thing of value I've ever heard come out of the mouth of syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager.]

[thylacine]

Huh? I don't know why you would think that! That doesn't make any sense at all! There's nothing stopping the two guys from the church from beating the crap out of you in the alleyway.

Anyway they get unlimited free crimes because they can get forgiveness no matter what. Therefore they are completely unimpaired by any form of morality.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you are an idiot.
She killed her kids because she is insane. She believed that God told her to kill her kids and she was aquited because anyone who truely thinks that is insane, which would fill the requirment for not guilty by insanity.
I do not know why or how you make a connection between her actions and christianity. If most christians were like her then there would be kids dying left and right at the hands of their parents.
[ QUOTE ]
She killed her kids because she was an extremely evil person.

[/ QUOTE ]
no, she killed her kids because she is insane.
[ QUOTE ]
And she was an extremely evil person because Christianity taught her to be an extremely evil person.

[/ QUOTE ]
again wrong, she was and is an insane lady.
[ QUOTE ]
People like this are not criminally insane. They are criminally religious .


[/ QUOTE ]
again wrong, she has been proven to be criminally insane.

[ QUOTE ]
It is time for society to recognize that religion and morality directly contradict each other. Deanna Laney killed two of her kids not in spite of her religion, but directly because of it. This type of evil is intrinsic to the very nature of religion itself, and people like Deanna Laney authentically represent the true essence of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
you really are dumb

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And she was an extremely evil person because Christianity taught her to be an extremely evil person.

[/ QUOTE ]
again wrong, she was and is an insane lady.


[/ QUOTE ]

SaltCracka is right here, she was insane. Although at times the Insanity defense in over-used.

Christians work to save children and make society better (just think of the Pro-Life movement and Christian charities).

W

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
And she was an extremely evil person because Christianity taught her to be an extremely evil person.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have no basis by which to support this statement. Your post is a foundationless attack on that which you oppose. (Which, BTW, Christians are upsettingly guilty of far too often.)

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
She killed her kids because she is insane. She believed that God told her to kill her kids and she was aquited because anyone who truely thinks that is insane, which would fill the requirment for not guilty by insanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't that god guy tell some dude to kill his kid[s] and stop his hand right before the guy pulled the trigger? I think it was either Moses or David. Errr, wait. I think it was the Pope... the hairy one. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]


Didn't that god guy tell some dude to kill his kid[s] and stop his hand right before the guy pulled the trigger? I think it was either Moses or David. Errr, wait. I think it was the Pope... the hairy one. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/iraq_bobnowhere.gif

Did you get your information from this guy? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Thank you for telling it like it is!

You'll catch major flak for this cuz it's not PC.

But it's still true.

I just posted a similar post after seeing the story on fox news. Not surprised to see there was already an uproar.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

using the pro-life movement to support your arguement here is a tad on the ridiculous side, geo. That movement generates way more than its fair share of psychos and sociopaths.

And yes, insanity is overused. Like here. The bitch murdered two of her children and permanantly maimed the third. Fry the bitch. Oh wait, no, let her live at taxpayer expense till we let the psycho back out. Then she can go back to church again and return to the source of her morals.

al

[adios]

At least a few people in this thread actually cared about the evidence in the case. Also I'll bet her defense cost less money than Mohammid's or Malvo's defense. Mohammid and Malvo basically provided no defense. Those that were quick to condemn my questioning of the cost of Malvo's and Mohammid's defense should be condemning you as well. Why is that? IMO it's because there was credible evidence that the woman on trial actually was insane legally and the insanity defense is NOT often a successful one. I doubt we'll here much from them though.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
And she was an extremely evil person because Christianity taught her to be an extremely evil person.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are an idiot who needs a class in logic.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for telling it like it is!

You'll catch major flak for this cuz it's not PC.

But it's still true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are also an idiot

[Homer]

I don't know who is the bigger wackjob, you or Zeno.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't that god guy tell some dude to kill his kid[s] and stop his hand right before the guy pulled the trigger? I think it was either Moses or David.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe it was Abraham.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
She killed her kids because she was an extremely evil person. And she was an extremely evil person because Christianity taught her to be an extremely evil person. People like this are not criminally insane. They are criminally religious .

[/ QUOTE ]

This is by far the most idiotic thing I've ever heard! I went to catholic schools for 8 years, and I'm positive that they never taught me to be evil, kill my kids, or anything else like that. She was insane, period! In my opinion, anyone who would kill their kids is insane. However, IMO, this is probably one of the few insanity crimes that should be punishable by death.

Joe

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

if I am walking down a dark alley, and I find myself being followed by two men, I would surely prefer to find out that they have just come out of church than not.

If I'm in that situation, I'd prefer to be armed, regardless of the religiosity of my pursuers.

Nuts are nuts, whether they claim to get their orders from God, or a dog in the alley behind their apartment in Yonkers.

[thylacine]

Several posts here clearly demonstrate the bias I was talking of. The fact that she killed her kids and said god told her to is not in any way evidence of insanity. The presumption that it is evidence of her insanity is precisely the bias I spoke of. (There may have been other evidence of insanity, but I don't believe the court case truly attempted to examine the issue sincerely by excluding the above bias.)

Religious people are so desparate to believe that their religion can only be good that they go into massive denial when they see obvious evidence to the contrary.

The simple fact is this. Religion is based on dishonestly fabricated supernatural stuff. It can not form a legitimate basis for anything whatsoever. In particular a religion can be used to justify literally any action, and so a truly religious person is totally unrestarained by any form of morality as they can do whatever they like and justify it using their religion.

The basic fact is that religion and morality are mutually exclusive.

Fortunately, humans have evolved as a social species, and most people are mostly good most of the time. Atheists have plenty of motivation to be good people because they have no religion to destroy that motivation. Most religious people are good people too, but if they choose to be completely honest about the reason why they are good, they will gladly acknowledge that their goodness springs from the godless atheistic morality that we have evolved with.

[whiskeytown]

I believe in Jesus and he is the Lord of my life

guess I'm a criminal, huh? - better call the cops on me. I'm probably two steps shy of going bonkers with a machette at the poker table

RB

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Is this directed at me or Andy?

[thylacine]

[adios]

You wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
Several posts here clearly demonstrate the bias I was talking of. The fact that she killed her kids and said god told her to is not in any way evidence of insanity. The presumption that it is evidence of her insanity is precisely the bias I spoke of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huhhhhh? The one who appears biased is you.

From the Court TV article you posted:

Four psychiatrists, including one hired by the prosecution and another hired by the court, concluded that Laney could not discern right from wrong when she killed her two sons and seriously injured the third two days before Mother's Day last year. Jurors, by the verdict, apparently agreed with the experts.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is why the jury in this case rendered the verdict it did. IMO it's very powerful expert testimony when a prosecution expert and a court hired expert have opinions inline with the defense experts.

It appears that you have a theory that contradicts the facts in the case. In fact you haven't provided anything to back your claim up.

[thylacine]

Apparently your religion makes you think it is okay to be intentionally dishonest and to totally misrepresent what I said.

Apparently your religion makes you jump to bizarre and irrational conclusions.

And it may well be the case that your religion
would allow you to deny justice to three children murdered or mutilated by their mother as a direct consequence of bible reading, church attendance and prayer.

[thylacine]

You have clearly chosen not to understand my post. The pro-christian bias is so extreme that you are incapable of seeing it. Open your eyes for once.

[whiskeytown]

were you molested by a priest or something when you were a kid? Mom beat you on the way to church? -

I've never seen such a hate filled, irrational athiest...unreal. Hard to believe your posts aren't jokes like GWB's

[thylacine]

My assessment of Christianity (and religion in general) is completely fair and objective and my logic is impeccable.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know who is the bigger wackjob, you or Zeno.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am.


By the way, there are also many casing of Christians accidentally killing or inflicting physical damage on their own or others children or adults during exorcisms. The belief that a demon may inhabitant a person is very strong in some fundamental Christian faiths. Anyway, recently a person or persons were given a very light manslaughter penalty when they killed a young child. I believe they smothered him during some special prayer/exorcism activity. It is not very common that a person dies during these procedures, but the practice does have physical and emotional repercussions that can be very pronounced and damaging. I don’t have time to look up any web links etc. - I am too busy praying to Satan.


I love the term ‘wackjob’.


-Zeno

[Josh W]

I assume, by extension, that if you were being followed by two gorgeous women, you'd like to learn that they did NOT just come out of a church....

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that she killed her kids and said god told her to is not in any way evidence of insanity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong, that is precisely the evidence that shows she is insane. You can skew it anyone you want but that is conclusive evidence that she is crazy. The issue here is not about God. The issue is that "someone" who is neither a real human being and in fact never been proven to even exist, told this lady to kill her kids. The fact that the jury aquited her shows more of an agnositic approach if anything.
You seem to be concluding that she was aquited because the jury thought she was crazy because god would never tell anyone to kill someone. No, they concluded that she must be legally insane because she thought someone/thing told her to kill someone.


By the way I still think you are an incredibly biased idiot.

[thylacine]

hmmm interesting. It seems you have argued convincingly in favor of my contention that she was not so much criminally insane as she was criminally RELIGIOUS.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Christians work to save children and make society better (just think of the Pro-Life movement and Christian charities).


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, just think of how bombing an abortion clinic helps make society better. All in the name of allah, er, i mean god.

Many christians, especially the ones in power, work to push an agenda that is very narrow in view regardless of what is actually 'best' for society. Many times, it's detrimental and is a waste of taxpayer money. Intimidation is also a very common used tactic. Awful 'christian' of them to do that. Christianity does not equal morality.

The fact that it's a woman that did this instead of a man will alone get her off easier. If a guy did this, he's hung.

b

[Al_Capone_Junior]

seems the original post struck a nerve, god-boy. Call up the church folk and have us both lynched. Or pray for us, that always does TONS of good.

insanity is no defense here, she's a f*cked up psychopath who kills in the name of god, and she should be SHOT DEAD. ANY man who did THE EXACT SAME THING would be shot dead, hung, fried, gassed, whatever. ANY MUSLIM who did THE EXACT SAME THING would have the same treatment. ANYONE EXCEPT A GOOD CHRISTIAN WOMAN WOULD HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY WITHOUT QUESTION.

But she's a good christian woman. She must just be insane, not a child murderer.

There's an ENORMOUS christian bias in this country, AND IT'S THE MAJOR SOURCE OF THE DECAY of this country.

The fact is I've seen FAR more "good christian folk" who are a bunch of FKed up A-holes than I ever care to think about again (I was, very unfortunately, raised amoung them, no wonder I abandoned religion). It's no wonder I'm moving to "sin city."

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious people are so desparate to believe that their religion can only be good that they go into massive denial when they see obvious evidence to the contrary.


[/ QUOTE ]

How true, how true. Unfortunately, most of the time their stupidity not only leads them to religion in the first place, but also allows their massive denial to become "hardcore fact" in their primitive minds.

[ QUOTE ]
The simple fact is this. Religion is based on dishonestly fabricated supernatural stuff. It can not form a legitimate basis for anything whatsoever. In particular a religion can be used to justify literally any action, and so a truly religious person is totally unrestarained by any form of morality as they can do whatever they like and justify it using their religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, need we look far to find historical precedence for this? NOT! It's practically the story of ALL history. Religious a-holes being a-holes at the great expense and pain of others, with relative impunity because "they're religious, so therefore they must be good."

Try spending some highly unfortunate years in the "bible belt" and see if you don't wind up with a bitter dislike of "good christians."

"good" and "christian" hardly ever really belong in the same sentence.

Except of course if you kill your kids by bashing their heads in with rocks. Then it's OK.

al

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
seems the original post struck a nerve, god-boy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call it like I see it.

Claiming Christianity is the cause of something as despicable as this is the height of ignorance. True Christianity is as far from this as the original poster is from intelligence.

[jdl22]

Was Christianity the cause of the Crusades, the various witch hunts in Europe and the American Colonies, and the inquisition in Spain and a few other European countries?

It would seem so and these are all more despicable than killing a few children.

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
Four psychiatrists, including one hired by the prosecution and another hired by the court, concluded that Laney could not discern right from wrong when she killed her two sons and seriously injured the third two days before Mother's Day last year. Jurors, by the verdict, apparently agreed with the experts.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is bullshit. I dont care if she could tell right from wrong, I wonder how these people, jurors included can sleep at night. She should get the death penalty.

I think even kids can get prison sentences these days, didn't the 6 yr old from MI get jail time for shooting a classmate? Could he tell right from wrong? I think so but not as well as this old crazy bitch.

And god didn't "tell" her to kill her kids, she is a coward that is trying to hide behind a religion that she obviously does not adhere too.

Oh yeah, How the hell can her husband stand by her side? Crazy or not, that is sick.

Does this mean she gets to keep custody of her child that she maimed? I would not be surprised.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You have clearly chosen not to understand my post. The pro-christian bias is so extreme that you are incapable of seeing it. Open your eyes for once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you've offered not a single fact to support your claim.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you have argued convincingly in favor of my contention that she was not so much criminally insane as she was criminally RELIGIOUS.


[/ QUOTE ]
That argument only holds weight if you believe that:
1. God(if he exists) talks to people
2. If he did exist that he asks people to kill what he has created.


I think most people think this lady is insane because she says God told her to kill her kids. Now as you said most people know right and wrong based upon the natural evolution of the mind, and in some ways thats right. But to be more precise people subconciously know whats right and wrong because the society they live in reflects what is right and wrong. Now there are many aspects that make up "society". These include customs, geography, economy,...etc..... and religion(whatever forms there may be present). So religion very much affects what society deems what is right and wrong.
Most people in society think killing is wrong(I hope), so regardless of who "tells" them to kill someone, thats not the point. The point is the person thinks someone told them to kill someone. What if this lady said her imaginary friend told her to kill her kids? If she was found to be criminally insane and aquited of murder, what then would you blame for the aquital?

You are trying to make a connection that simply is just not there.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This is bullshit. I dont care if she could tell right from wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the legal definition of insanity in Texas? I'm absolutely positive that the shrinks in the case testified as to their opinion on whether she was or was not legally insane. If you don't think anyone is ever legally insane then you would have to support changing the law.

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how these people, jurors included can sleep at night. She should get the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an easy one, the judge gave them instructions on the criteria that they could use in finding whether or not she was legally insane.

[ QUOTE ]
I think even kids can get prison sentences these days, didn't the 6 yr old from MI get jail time for shooting a classmate? Could he tell right from wrong? I think so but not as well as this old crazy bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to compare cases without presenting the facts in each. You just called her a crazy old bitch, which is basically what the jury found that she was.

[ QUOTE ]
And god didn't "tell" her to kill her kids, she is a coward that is trying to hide behind a religion that she obviously does not adhere too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone ever delusional?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, How the hell can her husband stand by her side? Crazy or not, that is sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to ask him. Why would you condemn him for not being like you?

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean she gets to keep custody of her child that she maimed? I would not be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that she'll be committed to a mental health facility of some sort. Almost surely she will not be involved with parental decisions regarding the child.

A terrible thing has happened with these children I don't deny that. I have problems with her defense as well but I readily admit that I'm not an expert on the human psyche. You all seem to feel that insanity defense is NEVER a valid defense but I'm not ready to go that far without somebody making a valid, logical argument that it isn't. The idea that this is some sort of religous bigotry demonstrated by some religous zealots hasn't been substantiated in the least. Apparently the proof is that it happened in the Bible Belt and the woman talked to god thus the jury must have given the woman's story credibility. Excuse me but that's as bigoted as any extremist zealot as those who the poster who concoted this explanation rails against. The woman was found to be legally insane due to the testimony of the expert witnesses. It's that simple.

[bernie]

Im not so sure christianity was the actual cause as was the peoples manipulative, controlling interpretation of christianity. But the idiots who did this blamed it on christianity instead of admitting that they were screwed up in the first place. They are responsible for their own actions/orders.

We do this nowadays with porno and violence on tv, dont we? Remember the bundy interview? He blamed it on porno. Next thing there was a crusade against porno. Now it's deemed worse than violence. Which is kinda funny.

Mind you, i still think christianity itself, and all it's trappings, is a joke. But if it helps someone become a better person, cool. It's when they start forcing it on others, like in the crusades and recent bills in congress, that it is wrong. Same with using it as an excuse for doing something wrong. Or right for that matter.

Someone saying they did something because 'god' told them to is the same as an ant on the wall talking to them. Early christians just happened to have a lot of powerhungry, manipulative nutjobs in the hierarchy. Christianity just gave them a forum to channel their energies.

b

edit: i think it would have been a little different verdict if a guy was accused of this.

[andyfox]

Yes, although not by extension. By golly.

[andyfox]

"uts are nuts, whether they claim to get their orders from God, or a dog"

Those that claim to get their orders from a dog are just dyslexic relgious nuts.

[andyfox]

The people who go to church are much less likely to mug you in the alley. I have no statistics to cite, but I think it's a good bet.

[andyfox]

I would respond, but I have to go get a wackjob.

[krazyace5]

How could they know if she could tell right from wrong during this incident? They were not there. Can she tell right from wrong now? Drunk people(and people on drugs) cannot tell right from wrong but they still get punished for their crime.

Should drunk drivers that kill someone be put in rehab, and let go free once they are "clean". After all they did not know what they were doing while the were intoxicated.

[MMMMMM]

I haven't read the other posts in this thread but I did watch a fair bit of the proceedings on Court TV.

I believe you are wrong in your assumptions about this case. Four out of four psychiatrists attributed her behavior to delusions caused by serious chemical imbalance in the brain. This case had nothing to do with a pro-Christian bias IMO; it had everything to do with the jury recognizing that this woman was insane and that the insanity was the result of a medical condition.

Also I have found nothing in the teachings of Jesus that would support such an act.

Some criminally insane persons are religious; others aren't. Badly off-balance brain chemicals have resulted in delusions and hallucinations, and sometimes horrific criminal acts, for many persons, whether they are religious persons or not.

[elwoodblues]

That's two in a row that say that the insanity defense is over-used. I'm curious why people think this...the VAST majority of the time it doesn't work as a defense. The new standards for insanity after John Hinkley are such that very few people can successfully use it as a defense.

[elwoodblues]

Quick caveat...I think that the jury's decision was probably right (and I think the "criminally religious" argument is asinine).

Do people think, given the exact same facts, except now the woman says "Allah told me to do it" the jury would have found her not guilty by reason of insanity? I wonder if juror biases would have changed the verdict in that case.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I was specifically refering to Son of Sam /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The people who go to church are much less likely to mug you in the alley. I have no statistics to cite, but I think it's a good bet.

I think if they're trailing you in a dark alley late at night, they're already out of the range of church-goers you can reasonably not fear.

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
Several posts here clearly demonstrate the bias I was talking of. The fact that she killed her kids and said god told her to is not in any way evidence of insanity. The presumption that it is evidence of her insanity is precisely the bias I spoke of. (There may have been other evidence of insanity, but I don't believe the court case truly attempted to examine the issue sincerely by excluding the above bias.)

Religious people are so desparate to believe that their religion can only be good that they go into massive denial when they see obvious evidence to the contrary.

The simple fact is this. Religion is based on dishonestly fabricated supernatural stuff. It can not form a legitimate basis for anything whatsoever. In particular a religion can be used to justify literally any action, and so a truly religious person is totally unrestarained by any form of morality as they can do whatever they like and justify it using their religion.

The basic fact is that religion and morality are mutually exclusive.

Fortunately, humans have evolved as a social species, and most people are mostly good most of the time. Atheists have plenty of motivation to be good people because they have no religion to destroy that motivation. Most religious people are good people too, but if they choose to be completely honest about the reason why they are good, they will gladly acknowledge that their goodness springs from the godless atheistic morality that we have evolved with.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are using inductive reasoning and latching onto one occurance to support your views. You are, of course, missing the obvious: Maybe God did tell her to kill her kids.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not so sure christianity was the actual cause as was the peoples manipulative, controlling interpretation of christianity. But the idiots who did this blamed it on christianity instead of admitting that they were screwed up in the first place. They are responsible for their own actions/orders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]


Someone saying they did something because 'god' told them to is the same as an ant on the wall talking to them. Early christians just happened to have a lot of powerhungry, manipulative nutjobs in the hierarchy. Christianity just gave them a forum to channel their energies.

b



[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

[elwoodblues]

Okay, let me see if I have this right: Crazy woman kills kids. Claims God told her to do it. Found not guilty by reason of insanity (as a result will probably spend the rest of her life in an institution instead of prison). Therefore religion is to blame?!?

John Hinkley tried to kill Reagan. Said that he did it to impress Jodie Foster. Found not guilty by reason of insanity (under a much easier insanity defense than that exists today).

By your logic, Jodie Foster (or maybe Hollywood in general) is to blame for the attempted assassination of Reagan. Which, leads me to the conclusion that Jodie Foster must be God.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is bullshit. I dont care if she could tell right from wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the legal definition of insanity in Texas? I'm absolutely positive that the shrinks in the case testified as to their opinion on whether she was or was not legally insane. If you don't think anyone is ever legally insane then you would have to support changing the law.

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how these people, jurors included can sleep at night. She should get the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an easy one, the judge gave them instructions on the criteria that they could use in finding whether or not she was legally insane.

[ QUOTE ]
I think even kids can get prison sentences these days, didn't the 6 yr old from MI get jail time for shooting a classmate? Could he tell right from wrong? I think so but not as well as this old crazy bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to compare cases without presenting the facts in each. You just called her a crazy old bitch, which is basically what the jury found that she was.

[ QUOTE ]
And god didn't "tell" her to kill her kids, she is a coward that is trying to hide behind a religion that she obviously does not adhere too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anyone ever delusional?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, How the hell can her husband stand by her side? Crazy or not, that is sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to ask him. Why would you condemn him for not being like you?

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean she gets to keep custody of her child that she maimed? I would not be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that she'll be committed to a mental health facility of some sort. Almost surely she will not be involved with parental decisions regarding the child.

A terrible thing has happened with these children I don't deny that. I have problems with her defense as well but I readily admit that I'm not an expert on the human psyche. You all seem to feel that insanity defense is NEVER a valid defense but I'm not ready to go that far without somebody making a valid, logical argument that it isn't. The idea that this is some sort of religous bigotry demonstrated by some religous zealots hasn't been substantiated in the least. Apparently the proof is that it happened in the Bible Belt and the woman talked to god thus the jury must have given the woman's story credibility. Excuse me but that's as bigoted as any extremist zealot as those who the poster who concoted this explanation rails against. The woman was found to be legally insane due to the testimony of the expert witnesses. It's that simple.



[/ QUOTE ]

Adios, you are wasting your time trying to argue with people who don't understand mental illness. Basically, what these people are saying is that "it doesn't matter if someone has a mental illness, they should still be held up to the same norms as the rest of us".

Of course, any logical person would see this is nonsense.

Furthermore, anyone who knows something about schizophrenia and other mental illnesses that feature psychosis knows that people who suffer from these illnesses have paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations. If you were hearing voices, but couldn't see anyone talk to you, and thought people were out to get you, but didn't know who or why or what, wouldn't you think something supernatural (God) might have something to do with it?

It has nothing to do with "Christian bias" or anything like that. Schizophrenics or otherwise psychotic people often times think God is talking to them. It is not related to their religious experiences. In fact, schizophrenia studies have shown that the disease has a prevalence rate of approximately 1% anywhere in the world, regardless of the religions or customs of the area. That's a strong indication that social factors play a minimal role in its pathogenesis.

[MMMMMM]

lol...Yes I considered that...the correct answer would vary on a case by case basis, I think, but given the climate a mistake might be made...what a mess anyway, all around...

[MMMMMM]

^

[Easy E]

It is time for society to recognize that religion and morality directly contradict each other

And all Muslims aren't bomb-wearing nutjobs either.

[bigpooch]

[bigpooch]

So why doesn't this post (or one of your previous ones) end
this thread? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[bigpooch]

Then we should ask if Jodie Foster wanted these kids killed?

[thylacine]

I will respond here to numerous posts below:

Deanna Laney, actually believed that God literally talked to her and commanded her to stone her kids to death as an act of faith. Then she actually did it (2 dead 1 mutilated).

The crucial point here is that every single detail of this is completely consistent with her religious beliefs. In fact there are millions of Christians (e.g. Pentecostals) who, like Deanna Laney, believe that God can and does talk to you directly and personally on a regular basis. These people routinely talk of the discussions they have with God. They also believe that really extreme events have happened and can happen at any time, for example during every conscious moment they believe that `judgement day' could commence within the next five seconds. These people most certainly believe that God can and does command people to do things, and that they should obey those orders without question, and they don't just expect that such commands are recieved by other people --- they are fully prepared to receive such commands themselves. Furthermore, they believe that at any time God could command them to perform literally any act whatsoever, even, and in fact especially, one that might appear otherwise immoral, for the express purpose of testing thier faith, and they are prepared to commit that act to prove their faith. And it should go without saying that, for true believers, direct instructions from God completely trump any other form of instructions about what you should or should not do. NOW WHY DON'T YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS F*KING CHRISTIANS READ YOUR OWN DAMN BIBLE AND SEE THAT EXACTLY THIS SCENARIO IS EXPLICITLY DISCUSSED RIGHT THEIR IN THAT CRUEL SICK BOOK. (I really mean it. Go find it and read it for yourself.)

So read it again:

[ QUOTE ]
Deanna Laney, actually believed that God literally talked to her and commanded her to stone her kids to death as an act of faith. Then she actually did it (2 dead 1 mutilated).

[/ QUOTE ]

In the context of her religion, there is not even the tiniest detail in that entire scenario that is in any way out of the ordinary. The inescapable conclusion, and the conclusion that so many religious people are so desperate to deny, is that the sickness and cruelty and evil of the crime is intrinsic to religion itself. One hundred percent of honest reasonable people should easily recognize the dominant role that religion played in this crime. But unfortunately, so many religious people will desperately defend the reputation of their religion under all circumstances (instead of being honest and reasonable) in spite of the overwhelming evidence against their religion.

As a consequence, the prosecution, the defense, the judge, the witnesses, and most of the media, simply did not subject religion itself the scrutiny and condemnation it deserved. Thus the evidence is enormously overwhelming that a massive pro-religious bias exists throughout today's society.

..................

By the way, for those of you with bogus logic and feeble minds, please note that whether or not there is some genuine evidence of Deanna Laney's insanity is completely irrelevant to my argument. If you cannot grasp this simple concept, then you need to spend a lot more time trying to understand the issues.

The only true purpose of religion is to propagate its own existence by any means whatsoever. Human culture is diverse and multi-faceted. It is important to understand where religion fits in. In fact it is very simple. Religion is Culture-Cancer.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry, thyacline, but I think you may be failing to sufficiently differentiate bewteen the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Yes, such a gruesome and illogical "test of faith" was recorded in the Old Testament. However Jesus taught no such things. When Jesus appeared and taught, athen made sacrifice of himself, the New Testament created to take precedence over the Old Testament. In effect the contract between humans and God was changed. If you read the four Gospels you will see that the teachings of Jesus do not condone actions such as Laney took.

If we consider "Christians" to be those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, there is no way such an action would be by them approved. However, many who consider themselves to be Christians actually DO NOT truly follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Such barbaric tests of faith belonged to older times. Animal sacrifice was a part of the "deal" between God and the Jews, since animals had been in a sense idolized and sacrificing them was a form of repudiating idolatry, as well as of atonement, and of reaffirming allegiance to God instead of to idols. Jesus Christ's teachings and great personal sacrifice were supposed to change all that, and animal sacrifice no longer became required for atonement.

I consider "Christian" to mean anyone who believes and follows the teachings of Jesus, not anyone who merely belongs to a Church and calls themselves a "Christian." Jesus gave two commandments to take precedence over all prior commandments: to love God with all one's heart and soul and mind, and to love other humans as one would love one's self. One who loves others as herself would not kill them.

Laney was delusional. It so happened that her religious bent was strong enough that her delusions (hallucinations even, perhaps) conformed to it, something like when you are dreaming, your dreams sometimes incorporate external stimuli (a bit like when you have to pee very badly and your dream starts to incorporate flowing water as a part of the imagery).

I agree that one who dwelt on the Old Testament and also became psychotic or delusional might think God was ordering them to kill as a test of faith. But one who dwells in Jesus' teachings would not be so inclined, for his teachings are not so inclined.

I am not a Christian (at least not in the typical sense of the word) but I think it is important to differentiate between the teachings of Jesus, and the history and teachings of the Old Testament. So when you refer to the Bible as a "cruel sick book", I think that is more appropriately applied to the Old Testament, to religion before Jesus, than to the New Testament or the teachings of Jesus.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
The only true purpose of religion is to propagate its own existence by any means whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks so very much for pointing this out too.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

are both part of the bible.

tho i usually agree with your political ideas, this should be pointed out here.

al

[thylacine]

MMMMMM, you are deeply mistaken about the true nature of the New Testament. After all, if you ask where did Hitler's motivation for exterminating six million Jews come from, the answer is clearly that it came the New Testament.

[MMMMMM]

Hitler's motivation could have come from the planet Neptune, for all it might matter: that he ascribed his views to any particular source does not imply that he was correct in his interpretation of that source.

[thylacine]

MMMMMM said:

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler's motivation could have come from the planet Neptune, for all it might matter: that he ascribed his views to any particular source does not imply that he was correct in his interpretation of that source.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are getting really desparate here MMMMMM. You are desparate to blind yourself to religion's evils, and at the same time you fabricate in your mind fictitious examples of religion's good.

On the one hand there are numerous examples of extreme evil, such as the extermination of six million Jews, that are clearly a direct consequence of religion. Christianity, and some other religions, very strongly promote the idea that the most important thing above all else is to be a member of that religion, and the obvious consequence is the persecution ( up to and including extermination) of non-believers.

On the other hand simple goodnesS for goodness' sake, i.e. Godless Goodness, is a purely atheistic concept. The simple fact is that religion and morality are mutually exclusive. Every single act of goodness that has ever ocurred can be justified on its own merits, and so religion is completely irrelevant to a person's choice to be good. But in the denial-driven fictional version of reality that MMMMMM and millions of others want to believe, they want to deceptively attribute acts of goodness to religion.

FAITH = DENIAL

[MMMMMM]

I don't see anything in Christianity that would encourage or justify the extermination of 6 million Jews. Specifically, what in Christianity, in your view, would promote such behavior? Where and what in the Bible?

Hitler was of a twisted, angry and hateful mind. He would doubtless have found another reason (and he did) to persecute the Jews. Hitler claimed that the Aryans were the creators of culture, that Orientals did not create culture but perpetuated it, and that the Jews destroyed culture. So he had his own twisted reasons even without any misinterpretation of Chrisianity.

Chriatianity also does not promote the idea that non-Christians should be exterminated. Constrast this with Islam, which in the Q'uran most specifically spells out the three choices non-Muslims are to be given: 1) to convert to Islam, 2) to live under Islamic rule, or 3) to be killed.

Now I agree that many people, including Christians, have misinterpreted religious teachings and, even worse, have committed barbarities in the name of religion. But before you blame the rerligion you should know precisely what it says. If it does not condone such actions, the blame lies with the people, not the religion.

Some people find religion helpful while others are probably harmed by their religious beliefs. To each what works best for him, I guess. But I think you are confusing the evil acts of people who think they are following a Christianity, with Christianity itself.

[thylacine]

Once again you are in total denial. You absolutely refuse to believe that Christianity can be to blame for anything. Christianity has basically the same evil characteristics as Islam, and the simple fact is that numerous acts of evil are a direct consequence of the intrinsically evil characteristics of religions them selves.

[MMMMMM]

You offer an opinion with zero facts to back it up. To continue this discussion meaningfully, I think you should provide some quotes from the Gospels to back up your assertion that Christianity has evil characteristics. Can't find a few such quotes? No surprise.

Again I point out that people's actions do not necessarily exemplify a religion's teachings.

Also, you are mistaken about religions in general when you throw them all into the same lot.

The original Buddhism, or teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (Theravada Buddhism, also called Hinayana Budhism), contain no injunctions for violence towards anyone. Nor for that matter do the original teachings of Taoism: the writings of Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu. The Old Testament does however, but the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are typically the opposite of violence toward others: forgiving those who harm you, turning the other cheek, loving one's neighbor as one's self. Islam does contain a great many injunctions to violence towards unbelievers, and this is most unfortunate, for the radical militant Islamists use these very quotes of scripture to justify their bloody actions. When Christians used Christianity as an excuse for violence, there were not using the quotes of Jesus to support their actions. When Muslims use Islam as an excuse for violence, there unfortunately are Q'uranic scriptural quotes that specifically support their bloody actions. Radical imams use these exact quotes from the Q'uran to energize the crowds and foment a rabid blood lust or aggression against non-Muslims. And of course Mohammed led many armies of conquest personally.

You sound like you haven't read the Gospels, or key parts of the Q'uran. Read and learn, if you wish, but realize that if you do not, you are forming opinions without the benefit of direct reading of the most important texts of these religions themselves. Also, regarding other religions, if you wish to gain an actual basic knowledge of what these religions really say, you should read:

Buddhism: The Heart Sutra, the Diamond Sutra and the excellent text What The Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula.

Hinduism: The Upanishads and The Bhagavad Gita.

Taoism: Lao Tsu and Chuang Tsu.

Christianity: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Islam: The Q'uran

Judaism: better ask Gamblor for the best recommendations;-)

I do agree that mankind has often perverted religion for his own purposes. I'm also not saying that all morality flows from religion or anything like that. However I think you are unduly prejudiced agaiunst religion, and that your view might become more informed and open with more reading.

It is not true that all religions seek to separate themselves from others and consider themselves 'better' than all others (although this is a strong theme, unfortunately, in Islam). In Buddhism and Taoism such considerations do not even enter the picture. In the Ba'ha'i faith, the goal is not separatism but inclusiveness with all manknd and religions. In Unitarianism/Universalism, separatism is not a goal at all.

[thylacine]

You are totally incapable of grasping reality in an honest fair and objective manner, in spite of the evidence I have already presented you. If you want an example of how religion completely obliterates a person's ability to honestly perceive the evils of religion, just go take a look in the mirror.

CASE CLOSED!

[MMMMMM]

You don't know what evidence is, if you think you've presented evidence, or even what the religions actually say. You could become more educated on the subject however by doing some selective reading. Heck you might even find it interesting.