BS: Religious freedom, or murder?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:41 PM

Yeah, that's good too.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 01:41 AM

Abstract art? Or just a bloody mess on a piece of canvas?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:37 PM

If you can get Cheney's quail hunting partner to stand in front of a canvas prior to the Vice-President pulling the trigger, we'll call it abstract art.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:15 PM

And possibly Dick would get that consumption as well!!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:41 PM

Actual penis enlargements guaranteed? Or just another bogus piece of spam?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:51 PM

I will not be able to change your minds. Fine. Just don't make such ridiculous statements without learning more about what you speak.

Then don't make such ridiculous statements that suggest she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's right. Dismissing someone else's perfectly valid, if inelegantly put, argument, is not a way to win or even call it a draw. It's the Israeli maneuver--one last sharp jab in the eye and quick call "okay, now we'll try a peace agreement."

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM

I just thought I'd mention that I'm getting mellow in my old age.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM

LH - I'm not sure if number 8 shot will enlarge the penis or not, but if Cheney won't try it, Elliot Spitzer probably will.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:17 PM

Bringing the thread back on track, it is sad to see there are other cases out there, right now, like this one. It is interesting to see what Oregon has done to try to settle the issues of religious belief and medical treatment for children:

March 29, 2008

A Clackamas County, Ore., couple are facing second degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges after their 15-month-old daughter died from what the state medical examiner said were easily cured illnesses.

The infant girl, Ava Worthington, died March 2 from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and an infection, both of which could have been cured with common antibiotics, the medical examiner said.

But police say that instead of going to a doctor, 28-year-old Carl Worthington and his wife, Raylene, 25, opted to pray for their daughter.

The two surrendered to police at Calackamas County Jail Friday night. Bail was set at $250,000 apiece, and they were released hours later after each posted $25,000 bond, Clackamas County Sheriff's Office spokesman Det. Jim Strovink said.

They are scheduled to appear in Clackamas County Circuit Court on Monday.

A reporter from ABC News affiliate KATU-TV in Portland, Ore., went to the Worthington's home before they turned themselves in, but the couple declined to comment.

The Worthingtons are members of the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, that has a history of shunning medical care in favor of faith healing.

A decade ago the church received national attention after KATU reported that the state medical examiner believed approximately 20 children whose parents belonged to the church, had died from untreated illnesses that were curable.

After that story broke, the Oregon state legislature changed the law to bar defendants, in most cases, from claiming their religious beliefs prevented them from seeking medical help.

"Ten years ago I couldn't express my feelings for what was going on out there, but I can now," said Mark Hass, who as a KATU reporter worked on the story and is now a state senator. "This is child abuse. Pure and simple. There is no other way to say it."

Though the revised law removed the so-called "spiritual-healing defense," there is still a provision that allows judges to give parents a lighter sentence based on their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:08 AM

The way I see it, by denying their offspring a better chance of survival they simply prove/propagate the Darwinian theory which they no doubt despise.

It almost seems a shame to stop them. I said, "almost"... When they do the same for grown-ups we do not prosecute them, after all, do we? But I accept that there is material difference when the victim is a child, who may not know better and cannot defend him/herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:34 AM

Think you're right there George. The rights of a child must have priority over the rights of the parent.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:48 AM

Darwinism has a proper place in this discussion, like George says. For instance, if somebody with a measurable IQ of under 70 commits a crime, they are treated differently than ordinary folks.
                  It's the same was with people who are addicted to some looney religious conviction. Because we equate religious rights with civil rights, we tend to give those people a pass.

                  At the end of the day, if there were very many of them, ordinary criminals would be locked up, with criminals with low IQ's and looney religious convictions would be free to go forth and procreate. At some point in time, most people would have low IQ's and looney religious convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM

It would be nice if everyone would get over the fact that some other people in the world think differently from them about various things, wouldn't it? ;-)

Now, let's see...

Vanilla this time? Or Chocolate?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:01 AM

LH - The larger problem seems to be people who simply don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:19 AM

Yes, there is an awful, Darwinian silver lining as the average intelligence of the species goes up...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM

So where was the silver lining when bush got elected?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM

There was no silver lining. It was cheap Mylar. People saw the ads on the box and ripped into too soon, before they read the small print:

This guy's a moron and is not looking out for your best interest. You have been warned.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

No kidding, Maggie! And the google ads at the bottom say "How to defend yourself" and "Taser C2 Super Value Pack!"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:46 PM

No, Riginslinger, the "problem" (as seen by you) is that they don't think the way YOU want them to.

But everybody thinks. Matter of fact, they can't seem to   stop thinking compulsively in every moment except when they go into deep sleep...or during sex...or if they can accomplish meditation successfully. (and very few people can do the latter...their minds and bodies are too restless) (everyone can "do" sex, though, so it's a very popular way to stop thinking for a short period of time...the bandaid approach to stress)

This is people's problem, generally...they can't STOP thinking. It drives them slowly crazy. It stresses them out and messes up their personality and their relations with other people. They drink and take drugs and acquire multiple addictions to try to get away from the stress their constant, aimless, restless, and combative thinking causes. They join cults to try to escape it. They become fanatics of one type or another (atheist? religious? political? gender issue? gay liberation? White supremacy? Black Power? whatever the hell...) They develop phobias and obsessions with certain specific issues to appease their obsessive and mostly negative thinking. And their "thinking" is normally nothing but the rerunning of a bunch of old and very tired stress tapes....such as your tape that sets you constantly in combat with "religion", for instance. You're a prisoner of your mental negativity tapes, just the same as the people you criticize...only it's a different set of tapes, that's all.

I'm waiting for you to shut the damn machine off, take the old tape out, and give it a rest. Try a new tape. A positive one. One that doesn't involve continually attacking people whom you see as different from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Megan L
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

Little hawk dear not everyone can and I am assured only men manage to stop thinking during the act but then we all know they never were any good at multitasking. hobbles oot the door as fast as these auld legs will go

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:56 PM

"The rights of a child must have priority over the rights of the parent."

I don't think this is what you are saying, Backwoodsman, but there was a time, not too long ago, when a woman in labor could be 'sacrificed' when the babe went into difficulties. I don't think it was only the Roman Catholics who specified that; it was evidently a fairly common mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:58 PM

"I am assured only men manage to stop thinking during the act but then we all know they never were any good at multitasking"

If that's all you're expecting then that's all you will find.......

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:22 PM

LH - There is nothing negative about dealing with reality. Sure, it can be depressing at times, but the world would be a much better place if more people would do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:28 AM

Darwinism has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact it is the antithesis of intelligence. It only has to do with an organism's ability to adapt to its environment and survive. If this includes intelligence, so be it. If not, it is not necessary. You might even argue that the jury is still out on intelligence. Human "intelligence" seems to be about adapting the environment to our needs and wants and it seems to be having some disastrous effects upon nature (living, that is).

Re Loony religions or loony religious convictions. Are you defining this term by the end result of these stories? There are certain established religions which purport to deny medical science and refuse medical intervention.* Here, I would tend to agree with you. On the other hand are loons who have religious convictions. These are either individuals or small groups who believe that they alone have found the "True Faith". It is their thought processes which qualify for the appellation.


*Most notable would be the Christian Scientist religion. "Purport" because many of its practitioners do resort to the medical world when push comes to shove. I don't know what mental gyrations they must go through to arrive at this point but they do. It has been documented that Mary Baker Eddy (the Founder and author of "Health and Science") also visited her medical doctor.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:57 AM

"I don't think this is what you are saying, Backwoodsman, but there was a time, not too long ago, when a woman in labor could be 'sacrificed' when the babe went into difficulties."

Never heard that here Ebbie, maybe it's different on your side of the pond (and at your latitude!). When my first wife was giving birth to our No. 1 son in 1980, and there were quite severe complications, the doctor in attendance told me, "We never risk the life of the mother", which I took to mean that, if the chips were down, it was bye-bye to the baby.

And you're right, it wasn't what I meant - I was speaking specifically about parental decisions rather than those of the medical profession. Seems to me that the preservation of a child's life should be paramount, until the child is old enough to make its own decision - i.e. when he/she reaches the age of majority.

That's the way I feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:20 AM

Darwinism affects all traits, intelligence among them.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:53 AM

I have to agree with Slag for once- remember genetic evolution is a long term process, operating over many generations. The success of intelligence has been due to the fact that ideas (Dawkins' memes) can spread faster than adaptations (genes) because they can skip direct from one carrier to another.

And remember evolution is not progress- there's nothing in the rules that say it has to go towards intelligence, which in fact may be a bad idea. Both genes and memes, viewed as reproducers, look no further than the next generation*, even if the mutation that makes them successful also dooms them in a couple of generations' time. Perhaps the reason the aliens haven't visited us is that intelligence is inherently unstable, and almost always self- destructs.

In fact the original post is an example (if the parents don't have other children) of a meme- line destroying a gene- line, and perhaps damaging its own chance of replication in the process.


*In fact, they don't even look that far. They can't look at anything, as they are inanimate. All they do is exist. Extremely good at surviving, but completely without purpose, like New Labour politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:20 AM

The other side of the coin might be this: in a primordial society, a child with a problem like extreme anxiety or autism probably wouldn't survive. The more intelligent people would probably prosper the most, so intelligence, over time, would increase.
                In modern societies, we keep pre-born infants alive, knowing they'll have problems as adults, and continue to try to treat children with all kinds of problems. One can't help but wonder if these practices would trend overall intelligence the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:26 AM

"In modern societies, we keep pre-born infants alive, knowing they'll have problems as adults, and continue to try to treat children with all kinds of problems. One can't help but wonder if these practices would trend overall intelligence the other way."

Yeah - Better we should just leave them by the side of the road so we don't mess up the quality of the gene pool.Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:56 AM

Absolutely not, Wesley. The only point I was making was this: if we are to look at human intelligence in a scientific forum, it would only make sense to look at it in its entirety.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 11:16 AM

No I understand completly. You feel the world would be a better place without the religious nuts, Mexican wetbacks and the autistic kids. You've made yourself very clear with your history of posts here.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 11:41 AM

Wesley - I think you are jumping to conclusions, unsupported.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:31 PM

Wesley, that is not a nice April Fool. Riginslinger has never posted anything that would imply, let alone state, that the world would be better without wetbacks or autistic kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:36 PM

Calm down, Slag. My concept of God is not in play here. That's because it has nothing to do with the subject being debated. I have not volunteered "my" concept of God. You are premature in rejecting it because you don't yet know what it is.

What I did was to give my understanding of a common 'American' understanding of religion, which is that "a little religion is a good thing," but if someone actually takes it seriously and wants to apply their literal understanding of not just Christianity but any religion, then they are likely to be perceived as a kook, or in your terms, as a psychopath.

You are assuming that the preservation of physical life should be a priority. The parents were assuming that the preservation of spiritual life, perhaps involving admission to some future life is the priority. We (you, me and them) won't know who's right until one of us dies. (After you, Alphonse.)

In the meantime, there is indeed a connection between what you said about God giving us dominion (again, I'm not giving you 'my' interpretation, I'm commenting on someone else's) and the idea that the parents could have exercised a lot more discretion. I would venture to suggest that that connection was not as clearly established in your post as you might think it was, but it's there, yes, you get points for that.

Just let me try to make my point again about how there are Biblical admonitions about fearing not those who can kill the body, but rather fearing those who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Regardless of whether or not I believe that, the statement is there, and it would seem to be pretty cut and dried from the standpoint of somebody who lacks your fine sense of discrimination.

As I said, It's not that the parents didn't learn. It's that they weren't taught.

Now, how 'bout dialing back on the preachiness and not trying to bite my ankles any more until you figure out where I'm coming from?? :)

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:28 PM

For those in the Darwin-and-intelligence aside, I'd like to toss in the finding that yes, with eyeglasses, dentistry, wheelchairs, epilepsy-warning dogs, we as a species ARE trashing our gene pool. That is the price of civilization, and one we pay willingly. Wesley S, it isn't that the world -or even the human species- would be "better off" if we let all the individuals who were sub-average on ANY scale die off instead of caring and loving them. But it is an undeniable reality that if we did, we would not be nearly as genetically prone to things like bad eyesight - when did you last see an open-ground predator of ungulates, like great cats and humans, who hunted by near-sightedness? Compare that to, When did you last meet an adult who didn't need glasses, contact lenses, or Lasik? We would be genetically stronger, or prone to other things less minor and treatable, but we'd be the kind of people I wouldn't want to be, and not the kind of people we ARE, who HAVE evolved not only the ability, but the DESIRE to care for and about people with diabetes and other treatable conditions that, in most futuristic (read: realistic, in many eyes, to the issue of population control) writings, are banned from reproducing.
Meanwhile, on the tower {anybody recognize that reference?}, it is also being discovered that being a CARRIER (of more and more things that are a bad thing to have) is often a good thing to be. Carriers of sickle-cell anemia, for instance, are resistant to malaria (which is why only peoples from malaria-ridden areas developed the gene which, when expressed as sickle-cell anemia, is a terrible thing to have - OR everybody had it but everybody ELSE lost it when we came out of Africa). But that is a simple one-allele thing; others are more complex and include more genes, so "carrier" becomes shorthand for "someone who has this in their family tree but doesn't suffer from it themselves" - not to imply that there is A gene for anything that follows:
Carriers of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, which last is becoming associated with older *fathers*, and of other disorders including autism, are showing up as remarkably intelligent and/or creative. Kind of like the math geniuses who are so much more likely to be left-handed or stutter or both. So our caring for our subaverages may actually be HELPING us in weird, unintended and unimagined ways. And in fact the evolution OF disorders like bipolarity, schizophrenia, autism, dyslexia may actually signal interesting turning points in the evolution of our intelligence and emotional capabilities.
But again, just because someone acknowledges that many genetic deficits do exist in our society and are not only tolerated but cherished, does NOT mean that a) they think society would be a better place without those individuals, or that b) they are actually serious when they use the genetic metaphor for meme-disabilities like believing in fairy tales when you're a grown-up, or other religious lunacies.
Now, we don't know if carriers of diabetes, which is all the little girl had in the original thread, are stronger in some way - and I doubt it, diabetes is not a human disease, it's a mammal disease, sugar metabolism is an old and complex cycle that is multiple-y disruptable. So these people were, to quote a current writer, either dangerously stupid or equally if not more dangerously insane. Sure, they had a *reason* to believe that if they made mouth movements of a certain kind, the physical laws of the universe would be suspended in their case: they had been told so by a priest. Or by *their* parents, who'd been told so by a priest. Now, is that OK with anybody who isn't an American?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:31 PM

Just a reminder: if you are going to post long messages, please break it up into paragraphs. It saves the eyes and encourages reading.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:12 PM

Mrrzy - That's an interesting point you make about autism and dyslexia and other abnormalities. People very who were afflicted with these things very well might not have survived in a tribal/pre-tribal society, but today they might very well hold fellowships at places like MIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:51 AM

Strictly speaking anything that happens to an organism AFTER it has produced offspring is of no great consequence to evolution. So, if you get diabetes or cancer after you reproduce it's a big "So what?" However, in the case of humans and certain other "higher" order creatures, continued care and nurturing of offspring are of vital consequence and so a longer lifespan IS necessary to the continuation of the specie.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 09:24 AM

Yes, but diabetes develops in childhood, before you reproduce. Usually. It CAN appear in adulthood, but that wasn't the case in the child here.

And things that affect PARENTING in an altricial species such as our own can still affect the evolution, since the point is to become an ancestor, not just a parent.

And I thought I had broken it up into paragraphs, I see now that they were WAY too big, sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:08 AM

Katlaughing--You actually READ this stuff?? ;^D

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:10 AM

Oh, and Slag, I forgot to say that I reject your concept of mince pie. I have no idea what that concept is, but I reject it. At least I have SEEN a mince pie.

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:17 PM

Everyone deals with what they think of as "reality", Riginslinger. They do. Without exception. They deal with their version of "reality". They deal with it quite consciously, every single day of their lives. Again, you object specifically to people whose version of "reality" is noticeably different from yours in certain specific respects (of a religious sort).

Why not just get on happily with your own reality instead? Do you feel threatened by those who believe differently, Riginslinger? I think you must feel threatened, otherwise you would not keep bellyaching constantly on this forum about people who happen to believe in some things you don't believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM

LH - I think people who are addicted to one thing or another definately have their own versions of reality.
                      People who are addicted to ancient superstitions do things like start wars, pervert society, and fly airplanes into buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:12 PM

Little Hawk - reality is demonstrable. You can have your own version, but if it doesn't jibe with what is demonstrable, then you are wrong, whether you want to believe it or not.

And I certainly feel - and in reality AM- threatened by the credulously superstitious, and so are you, whether you wish to believe it or not. The war of Islamic terrorists on the rest of the world has been going on for decades; the war of Christianity against reason in the US is kind of new, but none the less threatening.

Believing Christians may not blow up embassies or airliners, yet, but they murder doctors, deny reality (not what they believe, but what actually IS), they are having a very good run at stifling reason when it contradicts their faith (their word for what I would call their dangerous and stupid superstitions), and (just to get back to the thread), this couple of them actually murdered, in many people's hearts, their child, by stupidly refusing to believe that she could possibly die if all they did for her as she got sicker and sicker and sicker was pray. The really sad thing is that in 40 states, if you allow a child to die because of your religion, that is legal, whereas if you let them die IN THE EXACT SAME NEGLECTFUL WAY

The believers in prayer are not living in their own reality. They are living in a delusion that is real to them. The same could be said of many mad people... except that there are no priests to say The voices you hear are the word of God, nowadays. Small favors.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:14 PM

ooops I was redoing that paragraph. I meant to say in those 40 states, it is a crime to allow a child to die by not taking them to a doctor when they get sick. Unless you can say that your god wanted you to, and then suddenly it's OK with the law.

I think it's time to take that allowance away to protect children from the stupidity -or, if you porefer, credulousness, of their parents. The OTHER 10 states seem reasonable to me: this is child neglect, and neglectful homicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:48 PM

Murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 09:02 PM

Bush proves that every silver lining has a dark cloud in the middle!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:10 PM

Um - if the gubmint can take little girls away from their families to protect them (these children) from being married off to married old men [not a typo], shouldn't they (the gubmint) be protecting them (children in general) from death? Or is that another thread, rather than a refresh of this one?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 12:39 AM

Mrrzy - It all seems like the same thing to me. People hopelessly addicted to some superstition or another doing something that--if they were straight, they would know to be wrong--and in the process hurting children.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM

Mrrzy--

I need you to 'splain about how you demonstrate the reality of God not existing -- or existing, for that matter. I wish it could be demonstrated, but it seems to me that the believer can always say, "Of course I can't demonstrate God; He/She/It is a spirit and I just have to have faith in Him/Her/It," while the materialist has the hard task of proving the negative.

Any number of Third World rebels have said, "We can take our country back! Just believe and the White Man's bullets can't kill you. So they attacked the forces of the colonizing power, whichever one it was that day, and were shot dead. When their friends complained to the guru/witch doctor/mullah/medicine man/leopard priest, he just said, "You didn't believe hard enough."

I really, really want to come up with a foolproof way to DEMONSTRATE that there is no higher power playing April Fool jokes like that, but how do you do it???? You can't just say, "I don't believe it" cause then you walk right into the dude's trap. Whaaaa?


CC