Child murderers got TOLD

11/18/2009 | 10:33 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Jonathan Turley has a nice article in the Washington Post about how faith should never be used as a justification for letting child murderers get off scot-free or on greatly reduced sentences. Parents who mumble words to an imaginary sky-daddy instead of seeking medical help for their sick children are ~~no better than~~ parents who murder their children in cold blood, and should be legally dealt with as such.

He comments on a case in which loony vegan child murderers were IRL b&hammered but the religious murderers got off with a slap on the wrist:

The key to the use of such a defense is that it must involve belief in a divine being, not a particular lifestyle. In 2007, Jade Sanders and Lamont Thomas of Atlanta were convicted of malice murder and given life sentences for the death of their 6-week-old child. The defense attorneys cited the couple's strict vegan lifestyle to explain why they fed their newborn son a diet of soy milk and organic apple juice, though during the trial Sanders said she had also breast-fed her son, who died in an emaciated state at 6 weeks, weighing just 3 1/2 pounds. The prosecutor and court had no qualms in treating this couple's beliefs as a poor excuse for murder, calling a nutritionist and vegan expert as a witness to show that a vegan diet can be safe for an infant. The prosecutor even told the jury: "They're not vegans, they're baby-killers."

So why aren't the Christian loonies treated as such? OH WAIT RELIGION OH LAWD NOW THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE...not. If we allow the religious loons to directly harm their children by denying them access to medical care, we are no better than enablers and accomplices to murder. It is fine and dandy if a religious whackaloon chooses to remove himself from the gene pool by trusting in his imaginary sky-god, but when children are murdered at the altar of their parents' lunatic stupidity, the parents deserve no better than to be treated like the murderers they are.