(February 26, 2010 at 7:41 pm)Watson Wrote:Quote:Quote:These things were motivated by her religious belief, not by the belief itself. if she id not hold the belief, she would not have let the child die. That's the point. It was her fault she beleived what she did, not the belief's fault she belied in it.
Right! Her religious belief caused her to let her child starve to death. You seem to want to blame her stupidity rather than the religion. I blame both.
Who would you have me blame? Is the religion now a person accountable for things? She was the one who believed what she did, she was the one who let the child starve to death, she was the on ewho took this course of action and it was ultimately all her fault. Are you suggesting that instead of putting her on trial for this, we should put the religion she classified herself under on trial? Last time I checked, religion is not a person whom you can bring to the stand in court. It is not a biological being of any kind. So, if we don't blame the woman, who do we blame? Should we bring every single Christian Fundie up on trial for this one crime, and put them all in prison for it? Should we then also re-try them everytime another crime is commited due to someone's stupid beliefs which they label as 'Christian'? That sounds tyrannical!
My point is, you are going through motions and gymnastics for the sake of blaming the woman's actions on something external, when she was the one who internally made the decision to believe, and to believe stupidly. Again, I offer you the chance to provide a pastor or group of pastors/priests who stood over her the whole time and forced her to make these decisions. Then we can put them on trial for their stupidity.
Notice the part where it says "I blame both."
