Agnostic.com

10 17

Leader of group charged over eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs's death says case is 'religious persecution': [abc.net.au]

Translation: I have the right to commit murder in the name of my God.

anglophone 9 July 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

What a Disgusting "human"!
I am devoutly praying for him to "enjoy" Gen Pop during his richly deserved incarcerafion

2

pathetic

5

Yet my suggestion that faith healers should be required to adhere to the same regulatory requirements as a doctor or nurse is considered "too radical" and would "interfere with their religious freedom..."

And we will continue to hear about abuses, torture, and murder of those who have little to no defence.

@Betty Well for a start they would be required to have malpractice insurance or have their license revoked.... and who is going to be stupid enough to insure these assholes?...

No license no practice if you do practice you can be arrested before things get to this point...

@Lizard_of_Ahaz I am totally with you on this subject. Faith healing and naturopathy should be heavily regulated.

@Betty If they want to claim they are preforming medical acts to the suckers then they should be regulated as such and face the same legal consequences a real medical professional would for their actions...

Oh yeah and since they are asking for money in exchange it would no longer be considered a "Tax exempt donation" either...

5

This is sickening, what people do because of their stupid religion!

6

Keel haul the lying bastard.

10

He's wrong. The case is child abuse and should be treated as a death because of child abuse.

She had been hospitalized once before because of their "abuse". Prior knowledge of consequences negates simple abuse. They knew she would die without the insulin and left it to their "god" to save her...or...not. That is a gross disregard for life. It is murder.

9

Let's hope justice is harsh.

7

Yet their "god" commands..."Thou shalt not kill".

Betty Level 8 July 12, 2024

Absolutely. But they wilfully choose to ignore that glaring inconsistency in the “religious persecution” argument.

Expect to read more of this type of offensive drivel as the defendants use the court case as a platform to expound their distorted views.

The trial is due to run for another 11 weeks.

The judge will have plenty to say at the end of the trial and will surely use that as an opportunity to criticise the defendants behaviour.

2

George Bush said God told him to kill those one million Iraqis..

Why can't we just kill anyone and claim God or Satan did it?

It would make you a murderer.

It would be helpful if you could provide a link to an article from a reputable publication with a direct quote.

Betty, @Flyingsaucesir

Just making a point. I couldn't imagine running out of ideas to prevent murdering anyone.
You don't know me yet?

It's just there is no international law in the world that can stop someone like Bush with his power and for reason of God told him to kill a million Iraqi , and mostly woman and children. Same with in Gaza,, where Zionist claiming they can kill under their God. The two largest war protest I've ever seen in this lifetime, Iraq and Palestinians. We are first biological organisms, then human being, God is just a word and a fairytale.

@Castlepaloma You are correct...I don't know you. I responded to your question. Now you know me a little better.

Leaders, historically have used religion and whatever god/s that are popular to justify war and murder. It is all through human history and I dare say it will be in our future. Power, control, and wealth have always trumped human life.

8

Absolutely NUCKING FUTZ!!! I hope they all get life sentences

The defendants have been asked to be tried as one person, which the Australian government has agreed to, in order to move the proceedings forward. Therefore it’s likely that they will all receive the same sentence at the conclusion of the trial.

I’m sure that the judge will use their discretion to give them the longest possible sentence under Australian law, given that the defendants chose not to use a jury.

@Zealandia I hope you're right!!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:761018
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.