PHIL 3310. Exploring the philosophical, ethical, spiritual, existential, social, and personal implications of a godless universe, and supporting their study at Middle Tennessee State University & beyond.
A perfect example of what happens when a young person's impulses are diverted from healthy human behavior into regressive delusion.
This kid should be dating girls and getting an education, not policing his neighbor's communication with his imaginary friend.
I am not in the camp that says all religious indoctrination is necessarily child abuse. But this kid's parents are just as guilty as is they had lit the match themselves. This is insanity.
The defense argued: "This is a young boy who has no criminal intent," he said. "He's not a criminal ... He should be given a chance to get back on the right track."
This statement and his negotiated plea-bargain, prima facie, seems to grant this horrific act a semi-excusable status because of a religious exception. Such as "He's not a criminal because he's doing the work of the Lord."
So the punishment for the crime is reduced because of the man's intent? That is a slippery slope that can turn bad quickly. I don't know how setting someone on fire can ever be considered not that bad despite any rational used to explain it. It also said that he was 18. Is that not the age that society has set for being responsible for yourself and your actions? I could understand the decreased punishment for a 8 year old, but not an 18 year old.
A perfect example of what happens when a young person's impulses are diverted from healthy human behavior into regressive delusion.
ReplyDeleteThis kid should be dating girls and getting an education, not policing his neighbor's communication with his imaginary friend.
I am not in the camp that says all religious indoctrination is necessarily child abuse. But this kid's parents are just as guilty as is they had lit the match themselves. This is insanity.
The defense argued: "This is a young boy who has no criminal intent," he said. "He's not a criminal ... He should be given a chance to get back on the right track."
ReplyDeleteThis statement and his negotiated plea-bargain, prima facie, seems to grant this horrific act a semi-excusable status because of a religious exception. Such as "He's not a criminal because he's doing the work of the Lord."
So the punishment for the crime is reduced because of the man's intent? That is a slippery slope that can turn bad quickly. I don't know how setting someone on fire can ever be considered not that bad despite any rational used to explain it.
DeleteIt also said that he was 18. Is that not the age that society has set for being responsible for yourself and your actions? I could understand the decreased punishment for a 8 year old, but not an 18 year old.
"This is a young boy who has no criminal intent," he said. "He's not a criminal ... He should be given a chance to get back on the right track."
DeleteExactly. It's almost like the defense argues that he's a good guy (obviously) because the loves God, he just had a bad day...or something.