Sister Marie Marot, of the the Fraternite Notre Dame order, was found not guilty of running a red light moments before a fatal crash in an Elgin intersection in 2007. Marot slammed into a Honda Civic carrying four teens, killing one of the Honda passengers, Keith Forbes, age 16.
Eyewitnesses from the Honda Civic and another motorist behind Marot testified she did not slow down as her van ran the light and plowed into the Civic. But somehow she was still found not guilty.
Nuns have to live a life of celibacy, but there are apparently other perks. You are allowed to live above the law.
Tags: Accident, Acquittal, Car, Death, Keith Forbes, Marie Marot, Not Guilty, Notre Dame, Nun
May 27, 2009 at 9:10 am |
If you read the full article here, it’s even more disturbing. Despite two witnesses (both the driver of the Civic, and another non-related witness) said that she ran the red light. But because she is a nun, they accepted her testimony as truth and claimed the other two were lying.
It’s disgusting.
May 27, 2009 at 9:14 am |
It must be all about the hats. Between nuns and priests, their fancy hats seem to make them completely above the law.
June 5, 2009 at 7:22 pm |
Either that or its the Vatican. They run the underworld read the “conspiracy theories”… shits true though man. Look how crazy all those fake ass smiles look on those women’s faces.. probably were made into sex slaves at a young age in some wierd occult ritual. lol
regardless of the authenticity of those theories the catholic church is still a very disturbingly creepy cult. They are some wierd ass people man.
June 6, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
It is not the vatican and it is definitely not the catholic church. When an individual does something, we have the tendency to generalise. When you give replies as these calling churches names and all what nought, have you heard the details and were you in court to hear what transpired during that minute of the accident? I don’t see any thing related to the catholic church in this particular article than that the person involved in the accident happens to be a catholic nun. Look at these people first of all as people because they are like you and I; then, look at them as people who dedicate their lives to helping people. I wonder what kind of person you must be saying people belong in cults. Have you ever been to a cult? Do not judge and you will not be judged. When you say things, be ready to back them up is my point.
June 6, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
If she wanted to be “looked at as a person like you and I” why did she insist on wearing her habit in court? I didn`t think Matt`s comments were helpful here, but yours are ludicrous, simonecamille!!
September 4, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
I have to agree with Bryan. How can a court of law get away with this. The presiding Judge is a disgrace to the Bar and his whole profession by allowing this to pan out in the way that it did and should be dis-barred (is that right) and the Defendent sent for re-trial.
December 29, 2009 at 2:15 am |
As a nun, she wears this attire everyday. Why should she wear anything different in court? On the other hand, all people are expected to turn out in court in respectable clothes – as a witness, court staff or defendant. How many defendants can you think of who go out of their way to look less than respectable?
The Menedez brothers were dressed to look like school boys. It didn’t deter the jury from convicting them. Give the justice system a bit more credit.
May 27, 2009 at 9:18 am |
She looks griefstriken at the death of the young person, doesn`t she?
May 27, 2009 at 9:30 am |
She has the same evil grin of Montgomery Burns from the Simpsons. You can almost hear her saying, “Excellent … non guilty, just as I’ve planned. Hehe.”
May 27, 2009 at 9:50 am |
You can bet your life that they were only worried about the money they stood to lose in the civil case! No one has yet explained what happened to the hundreds of millions of dollars that were donated to that wicked old crone Mother Teresa during her lifetime!! (See http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/ et al)
June 6, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
My comment is just a general comment about treating and being careful of what we say about others. The nun has the right to wear her clothes at any time and if her attorney decided not to put her on the stand, it was his decision not the catholic church. Make comments that are sensible about the person involved. It was not the catholic church that did the hit and run; only one person did the hit and run and that unfortunately was the nun. When such things happen, why do you barriejohn take your time to describe the person and going as far as talking about her faith? What does her faith have to do with what she did? Think about the dead person and wish that his soul rests in peace rather than spend precious time condemning a church. WHICH OF YOU HERE THROWING STONES AT THIS NUN HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING BAD TO SOMEONE ELSE BEFORE? It is true she killed a human while on this unfortunate day and she will stand before God tomorrow. She may have neen let go by the court but which of you have thought about what her conscience is doing to her? When did journalists start giving detail news on what happens? They do most of their reporting based on “hear says.” Dig into the story before you say things.
May 31, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
Like most of your posts, this one uses extremely sloppy logic to wild and over generalizing conclusions. Trust me, in this day and age if the religious life was something that allowed people to get away with a bunch of crazy and immoral behaviors there would be millions of people clamoring to join.
June 1, 2009 at 7:53 am |
Your logic would be correct, were it not for the fact that many people have some self respect and would rather stick their heads into something rather unpleasant than become so disgustingly sheep-like.
Further, take not; this is about religious life that is *extremely* devotional. We can only expect such leniency for those in the high ranks and not just any old, ‘normal’ sheep.
June 4, 2009 at 5:53 pm |
Ugh. It’s hyperbole, dude. Obviously a religious life doesn’t allow you to escape the law all the time.
Also, if you want to be taken seriously, use commas where appropriate, hyphenate “over-generalizing,” and turn “generalizing” to generalized, because it’s supposed to be a goddamned adjective.
May 27, 2009 at 10:24 am |
Wow, God really does answer prayers! Of course, it seems, only when it involves railroading the justice system in favor of a criminally negligent manslaughterer.
Mysterious ways, I tell you.
May 27, 2009 at 1:33 pm |
If priests continue to get away with sex crimes, I suppose a little hit and run isn’t a big deal.
May 28, 2009 at 12:18 am |
*whispers* Why do all the nuns look like men?
May 28, 2009 at 11:08 am |
Interesting story… not sure what to think. I’m surprised there weren’t any cameras at this intersection though…
May 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm |
It does seem worse once you read the article. What is a “traditional catholic” order not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church?
May 30, 2009 at 12:05 pm |
Catholicism isn`t good enough for them!
May 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
I have looked them up on the web – there is quite a bit of information actually, including a website of their own, though some of it almost caused me to vomit, it is so unctuous and self-regarding! They are “Traditional Catholics”, founded in 1977 by Bishop Jean Marie, following “an urgent request from the Blessed Virgin Mary Herself” (I`m not making this up – though I suspect that SOMEONE is!!). Traditional Catholics, like Padre Pio, think that Vatican II was the work of the Devil, and continue in the traditions of the Catholic Church prior to that. That is why I said that Catholicism isn`t good enough for them – it`s not a joke really!). Besides adhering to the Latin Mass, they are particularly incensed by the idea that there can be salvation for ANYONE outside of the Holy Catholic Church. So you see, they`re really nice people!!
May 31, 2009 at 8:47 pm |
There are a couple of very old women in my building who appear to be twins and dress very oddly wearing headscarves even in the warm weather. For a long time I wondered if they were Muslim. Then one day I saw them handing out leaflets on 42nd Street (yes, that 42nd Street). They said that the Virgin Mary had appeared to someone in Queens, NY and wanted women to cover their heads and a few other things like that. Apparently they were an off-shoot of the Catholic Church. I wonder if they’re related to these nuns.
May 29, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
This is a revolting story…
May 30, 2009 at 10:55 am |
Maybe if i chose not to have sex for the rest of my life and dedicate my life to Santa Claus I can be above the law too.
May 30, 2009 at 11:13 am |
This is why i hate religion.
May 30, 2009 at 11:27 am |
Yes, agreed, this is awful, but honestly? What good is going to come of locking some old nun away? It won’t bring the victim back to life, it won’t help anybody. She knows what happened, she’ll live with that for the rest of her life. That might not be good enough, but it’s something.
May 30, 2009 at 11:52 am |
what good does it do to lock anyone away? the nun should not be treated any differently than anybody else who has ever killed someone whilst violating a traffic law.
May 31, 2009 at 7:27 am |
she won’t have to live with it– she can just go to confession tomorrow… and she doesnt look that old… did you ever go to catholic school??? nuns can violent, angry unfeeling and just as worthy of punishment…
May 31, 2009 at 9:31 am |
Wouldn`t YOU be bitter if you felt that God was forcing you to live such a restricted, impoverished life?
May 30, 2009 at 11:59 am |
ok, so why don’t they leave ordinary people alone when they crash and kill? they too know what they did and they’ll live for that for the rest of their lives. No sir. If she wants to get punished by her god, let her part this planet and deal with it however she likes. But while she’s here, she’s made from the same crap that you and me are made of, and she should be treated exactly the same way as if it she was you or me.
May 30, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
You`re all missing the point here! They HAD to win this case, as there is a civil case coming up, and they don`t want to have to pay millions of dollars in compensation to the victim`s family!!!
May 30, 2009 at 12:11 pm |
Why does everyone assume that she was guilty? Sounds like a he said/she said situation and there is a presumption of innocence. Seems folks WANT to believe she is guilty just because she has dedicated her life to a mythological entity.
May 30, 2009 at 12:59 pm |
So, to summarize: someone who is not a Catholic nun was not found guilty of killing a guy in an accident.
You take a stand believing the accusers, even though no one of us knows what really happened.
Therefore, since she is a nun and nuns must be evil, you complain about their hypothetical privileges of being above the law… sure, in a country where attacking Catholics is “the last accepted prejudice”.
An accident (!) involving a non-catholic (!) is used to fuel yet another Catholic-bashing campaign.
June 4, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
Oh jesus christ almighty.
Bashing Catholics is hardly the “last accepted prejudice.”
Many states still have laws on the books preventing atheists from running for office. Gays can’t get legal equality throughout most of the country.
Wowie, last time I checked, Catholics aren’t barred from certain jobs based on their religion, can’t be fired based on their religion, can run for office, are able to get married, are allowed to adopt, etc.
Think before you type. Seriously, I understand that “_______ is the last accepted prejudice” is the new black, but for Chrissakes, at least be able to back up that asinine claim.
May 30, 2009 at 1:30 pm |
This order does not belong to the Catholic Church – they are schismatics. Before you go picking fun at nuns at least know who they really are.
May 30, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
See my reply to Jackybird (above). THEY are the true Catholics – it`s the “modernisers” who are the heretics!!
May 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm |
Is that Whoopi way in the back?
LMAO!
May 30, 2009 at 7:25 pm |
Do you see the two smiling nuns? Their faces are so creepy!
May 30, 2009 at 10:51 pm |
That’s ok, I’m sure she immediately went to confession so she could be forgiven by her imaginary fairy, but the joke’s on her cuz when she dies, there’s no afterlife.
May 31, 2009 at 9:37 am |
I’m surprised no one mentioned how much she looks like Emperor Palpatine. She probably just used a Jedi mind trick on the jury. Seriously, though, WTF? I need to get a funny hat with a “get out of jail free” card in it too…
May 31, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
If priests continue to get away with sex crimes, I suppose a little hit and run isn’t a big deal.
May 31, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
truly revolting
May 31, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
What ever happened to the SECULAR premise of innocence until proven guilty. I think you all have a lot of unresolved angst directed at God, and religion.
I don’t know a single religious person who has such anger directed at atheists, and am constantly amazed at the hatred that many atheists direct at religious folks who have done them no harm.
If any of you had a fairness gene, you would admit that Christians, Catholics in particular are the most persecuted minority we currently have in this country. The idea of a nun being let off the hook for such an accident without plenty of doubt about the other witnesses is not an idea I find credible. Nor, I might add, would I find the idea of anyone being let off the hook for manslaughter acceptable. Though I do believe that sometimes accidents happen, without malice aforethought.
Religious people are the first to admit that we all have faults and make errors, sometimes fatal ones. I pray to my “Fairy” that you all develop some humility and begin to realize that we are all human, foibles, religion, (and atheism is a religion–it’s built into the name). and all.
May 31, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
Christians – a “persecuted minority” – oh, PLEASE!!! And if you understand so little about etymology I suggest you consult any standard dictionary, where you will find that OF COURSE “theism” is “built into the name” of atheism – it means WITHOUT theism, the very antithesis of “religion”!! Finally, “religious folks” have done me, and many others, a LOT of harm – irreparable harm – and still
May 31, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
and still do, so please engage your brain before making further comments on this site, as you are just making yourself and your poor deluded friends look stupid!!!
June 2, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
This comment would be correct if Christians were actually being persecuted. And a minority.
June 4, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
“I don’t know a single religious person who has such anger directed at atheists”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
They just don’t trust me based solely on my lack of religious beliefs, and that’s somehow acceptable and certainly not a sign of “anger” or hatred directed at me.
“Religious people are the first to admit that we all have faults and make errors, sometimes fatal ones.”
I love the sweeping statements that certainly can’t take into account every religious person, as that would have to account even for murderers who justify their murdering with their belief in God. Seriously, many of these comments are some of the most jackassed things I have ever written.
May 31, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
Wow I wish I could have the last couple of minutes back after reading the original story and the following comments. I wonder how many of the comments on here are from members of conspiracy groups.
For the author maybe you should have looked deeper into the article than merely pulling out the bile that you did. Go ahead and re-read the article and what you will find is that obviously Marot had a much stronger attorney representing her. By the way after reading the article I saw no comments, no suggestions and no mention of the other attorney.
Also, I found this interesting that you overlooked:
.
Please remind me, what was your point of this post again?
May 31, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
And what`s YOUR point exactly, know-all? The statement you quote here was firmly denied by the police and the prosecution, but no one would know that from the way you quote it!! You certainly put your finger on it though when you stated that the little angel “had a much stronger attorney representing her” – that`s obvious! It looks, in fact, from what is said, as if it was the prosecution witness that was on trial rather than Little Miss Butter-Wouldn`t-Melt-In-My-Mouth. Talk about “justice”!!!!!
May 31, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
LOL, I love how when a person has a different opinion than another person, the one disputing the other opinion is quickly tagged as a “know-all”. Very mature and highly intelligent of you barriejohn…quite impressive.
As for my quote, you state it was firmly denied by the police and the prosecution, maybe you can help me here, but the article that this post was linked to states that “Realzola and prosecutors denied there was any deal.” So as you state no one would know the police denied it from the quote I gave because the police did not know it, or should I label you as a “know-all” as you are obviously adding more details to the story than what was reported?
May 31, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Whoops, didn’t mean to bold everything after the quote….guess I’m not a “know-all” at all, eh?
June 1, 2009 at 2:46 am
You`re just “nit-picking” now – the police are part and parcel of the “authorities” that launched the prosecution! If she was so sure of her innocence why couldn`t she take the stand? I reiterate what I have said before: it was all about the money – there was no way that these bigots were going to hand over any of their precious fortune to the unfortunate families involved. Catholics don`t raise money to help people!!
May 31, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
PS Why didn`t they put her on the stand? Not because she would have had to have given evidence under oath, SURELY!!!
May 31, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
My point of the post was to show how people are given the benefit of the doubt in cases like these because they are religious.
And if you read beyond the quote you cherry picked from the article, it also says the prosecuters denied there was any deal made. Whether it is true or not, there is obviously no proof of any deal made.
The fact is she was found not guilty because she is a nun.
May 31, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
Not guilty because she is a nun, really? Really?
Where was that stated in the article you linked up with?
June 1, 2009 at 11:01 am |
Take your blinders off, man. Celebrities get off lighter than normal people by virtue of their celebrity status. Politicians get off light because they’re public figures. Police officers get off light because they’re buddy buddy with the justice system.
It’s no different for the clergy. They’re not treated the same way as the rest of us, simply because they’re seen as being inherently more moral and trustworthy.
May 31, 2009 at 10:44 pm |
I believe the original story ran in the Chicago Sun-Times a week ago. I’m not sure everyone is aware of this but there were other parts of the trial that were brought to light in the sun-times article. One is that there was a debate whether or not to allow her to wear her nun outfit in court. It was ruled that she was able to for some reason. The second is that the jury was not made aware that this accident caused a fatality. So in the eyes of the jury, this was just a common traffic accident.
And in my opinion, this woman should be locked up and this “church” should be taken to town in a civil case. What creepy smiles. Different picture was in the Sun-times I believe and she had the same creepy smile going on.
May 31, 2009 at 10:46 pm |
Oh it just hit me; she looks like the Emperor from Star Wars.
June 1, 2009 at 11:25 am |
SHE LOOK LIKE THE SITH LORD!!!! OMG
June 1, 2009 at 1:33 pm |
Hatheists…
Eyewittnesses ?
Teens in a civic, a motorist behind a nun and… of course the nun that plowed into the civic.
Why… did she plow into the Civic ? I don’t know, I wasn’t there and there’s no mention in the article. Did she rent a van that broke down at that specific point
and did mass X speed finish the job ? Did she pay no attention or… was it on purpose ?
Nobody here can tell, but hey she’s nun, so she is wrong and… we’ll mock her.
So, I’ve got one for the “happy are those who ask questions”-hatheists
Why… punish people over things you don’t know ?
Ditto for all replyers “knowing” what happened.
I’m not here to mock real atheists, but come on guys, if you believe you can judge people on basis of shitty evidence like this…, you might as well embrace god without a question.
Visit my site for more info.
June 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
The idea isn’t that nuns are inherently wrong. I don’t think anybody here believes that, but if that’s what you want as your straw man, you go ahead and attack the hell out of it.
The fact is that her status as a nun gave her instant credibility that was given more importance than eyewitnesses.
When two people see a car speed through a red light and hit another car, that’s a conviction anywhere, unless, of course, the accused happens to be of a special status: politician, police officers, celebrities, or, in this case, the clergy. I am against the use of special status as some sort of legal ace-in-the-hole in general.
June 1, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
Still, have you been an ewyewitness, do you KNOW what happened ?
The article says _nothing_ about her status giving her a certain credibility b.t.w.
June 1, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Are you people completely stupid or something? Why the hell do you think the defence team fought for her to wear her habit throughout the case, despite objections? Wake up and smell the coffee!!
June 29, 2009 at 10:55 am
Shran, Sure, the article sais nothing about her status getting her out of trouble, but come on, if the Accused was a celebrity, cop or politician, the articles would also say NOTHING about their status getting them off the hook b.t.w.
June 1, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
why punish people for something we don’t know you ask? how about religious wars started to punish people for following the wrong god, which you can’t be sure they are?
June 1, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
So… Someone else makes up stories and because they do you have to act the same way ?
I’m no religious guy, I just don’t like Atheists that behave like religious guys to…………………………………………………….. “prove” their point.
June 1, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
Some of the people commenting on this blog entry seem to be living in a world of make-believe! Juries are notoriously gullible, and are easily swayed by clever lawyers, rather than looking at the truth dispassionately. That`s why all celebrities and people of standing in the community do everything they can to get a jury trial – it`s not just the clerics! There is an elderly comedian in the UK called Ken Dodd, much loved by “the nation”. A few years ago he was taken to court by the Inland Revenue, as he had stashed away literally millions of pounds in cardboard boxes and offshore accounts, and paid tax on none of it. His defence was that he was “muddled” and that he didn`t realize, even though he employed accountants, that he still had to pay tax on money put into offshore accounts. This was an open-and-shut case of clear tax evasion, but his solicitors went for a jury trial, and hey-presto, he was acquitted!! This “victory” is now a mainstay of his act, but I for one refuse to watch him any more. What we want to know is why this nun was allowed to sit in the courtroom in her habit: why she was prevented from taking the stand (to give evidence under oath!); and how it turned out that the person on trial was one of the witnesses to the accident and not the person accused of causing it!! All very perplexing.
June 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
There are two sides to every story. People who are jumping all over her have no idea what happened. You weren’t even in the courtroom when all sides presented their case. Shame on you for casting stones.
I’m also kind of disappointed in people who look at her pic and “know” she is guilty.
And before anyone says I’m just taking the nun’s side, I’m an athiest and I don’t think a nun’s word is any better or worse than anyone else’s. Nuns are humans just like you and I. Who here hasn’t broken a single traffic law in our life?
June 1, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
I should hope that anyone who’s actually guilty of vehicular manslaughter would be convicted on the merits of the case and not let off based on their standing in the community.
To equate somebody dying as a result of this collision to “just breaking some traffic law” is extremely dishonest. If two people saw me run a red light, I wouldn’t get off scot-free, especially if I killed someone in the process.
Why should a nun get special treatment? There’s nothing that makes her more honest than anyone else.
June 1, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
> Why should a nun get special treatment?
Did she ?
Evidence please, I can’t do much with what you believe to be true.
June 1, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Any traffic violation with multiple eyewitnesses is almost always an open and shut case.
It’s hard to discredit witnesses who saw a light turn red and a van go through it. Unless, of course, you have a nun on the stand who is dressed in her habit throughout the court proceedings who swears up and down on the Good Book that she didn’t do it, honest.
I’m going based on what makes, by far, the most sense. If you would like to play the “you have to have been there to know what really happened despite all common sense” card, then be my guest, because there were people there. They said she ran a red light and killed someone.
June 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Even YOU are not reading this correctly Janus Grayden! Her attorney did NOT put her on the stand, so she did NOT have to give her evidence under oath. That to me speaks volumes!!
June 1, 2009 at 5:43 pm
barriejohn, I know that she never went up to testify. However, you’re right, what I said was intellectually dishonest and I appreciate you calling me on it, even being on your side.
What would have been more appropriate is to say that she let her habit do all the testifying for her. Literally. Not only did she never go up to the stand, but the defense didn’t call anyone at all.
There was absolutely nobody who backed up her statement. Their only defense, quite literally, was to call the driver of the other car a liar. Hey, when you have a nun in full regalia on your side, who is the jury to believe?
Going the satirical route for a quick jab wasn’t even just misleading, again I apologize, it simply isn’t even as effective as just listing the facts of the case.
I’ll just say it again. Nobody verified her story. Not one person. Nobody even said she didn’t do it and she won because her attorney called the victim a liar.
June 1, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
That bitch will burn in the hell of her own guilt. She should be in prison but she’s just as fucked. Religion and money are the two causes of every evil in the world.
June 1, 2009 at 8:03 pm |
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
June 1, 2009 at 9:52 pm |
why do I feel like part of a quilt…?
June 2, 2009 at 8:07 am |
Are you trying to cover up something?
June 2, 2009 at 12:51 am |
Christianity is flawed, only because man is flawed.
June 2, 2009 at 2:11 am |
And man invented every sngle religion and philosophy!
June 2, 2009 at 1:27 am |
Far be it from me, inasmuch as this is your blog and all; however, do you suppose it’s possible to go beyond the sophomoric and maybe move into the critical thinking phase.
Normally I would never stop by this type of blog, but be it as it may, somehow this blog gets featured in the ‘Community’ section; therefore, week after week I have too (it’s not an option) look at your ridiculous issues.
June 2, 2009 at 8:09 am |
Maybe she’s also secretly a celebrity and/or a very rich woman!
Law is convoluted. Witnesses are unreliable.
June 2, 2009 at 8:12 am |
Yeah, witnesses are overrated when you can just call the plantiff a liar and win.
June 3, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
The nuns all look either retarded or like they’re going to try out for a Zombie movie. ha ha
June 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
Again, the FACTS: this is about an ACCIDENT involving a NON-CATHOLIC.
These are the only truths we can agree on. So this article is misleading, to put it mildly. This is where the facts end. Enter the speculation.
As for who is guilty, I for one don’t want to take a stand, because I know that I don’t know. Others prefer to believe one is guilty because they are atheists and the accused is religious. Then in their twisted minds the reason of the jury’s decision MUST be a bias in favor of nuns. This is unfair. A single jury could even be biased that way, but the general attitude towards nuns is sadly the opposite. This despite the fact they gained their credibility humbly serving the community.
I know, it sucks. Juries tend to be influenced by the wrong factors. And then again when does this problem becomes unacceptable, demanding your attention? When you can use it for some Catholic-bashing. How convenient.
As for the smart guy who says that atheism is not a religion, next time avoid ridicule, things are not that simple. A-theism, ooohhh, how brilliant! no one knew! Too bad there are religions without a god.
The point is, atheism is a religion because the mental attitude is similar to that of other religions. Your system of beliefs is not proven, it’s just your myth of the Superior Enlightened Humans.
June 4, 2009 at 1:13 am |
I would just love to know what “system of beliefs” we atheists are supposed to have! That has to be the most inane comment yet!!
June 4, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
“…Again, the FACTS: this is about an ACCIDENT involving a NON-CATHOLIC.
These are the only truths we can agree on. So this article is misleading, to put it mildly. This is where the facts end. Enter the speculation.”
..and so you did enter the speculation…
but I ask you, how can having no beliefs be a belief?
June 3, 2009 at 2:40 pm |
Were you there to hear all the evidence and arguments of the case? The jury did and found there wasn’t enough to prove the nun guilty. I’ll place my faith on the jury over your armchair analysis.
June 4, 2009 at 1:23 am |
I think BEattitude and others have gone too far here in assuming that she “got away with it” because she was a nun, but that is obscuring the real issue. I notice that not only has no one answered my repeated questions about the case, but they are just being ignored – for obvious reaons! Why was she allowed to wear her habit throughout the trial, despite objections: why was she not put on the stand to give evidence under oath; and why was the trial all about one of the witnesses, when even if HE could be discredited, was only confirming the testimony of the other driver, in which case it should have come down to one person`s word against another. The assumption was clearly made that the nun was telling the truth, even though she didn`t give evidence in court, and that the other driver was lying, even though there was an independent witness who supported her evidence! To the onlooker, it looks as if the verdict was a foregone conclusion!!
June 3, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
We are here to please our senses. She got acquitted today. I hope she feels for them. She looks very joyful in that photo. Hope she lives long and enjoys her material senses. But, she have to take another body after her death. So, darling! Be prepared.
June 3, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
I have to come to the nun’s defense here. I have run red lights without being aware of the consequences of my actions. If she is jovial, she has a right to be since her actions were not deliberate. The fact that she was charged is beyond me. This article presents an atheist bias that does not further the primordial cause of the movement. Spread knowledge…not opinion
June 4, 2009 at 1:35 am |
I don`t know quite what to say Felming.! I have been driving for over 40 years now, and I can assure you that I have NEVER run a red light. All I can say to you is, just be thankful that you haven`t had an accident. However, in this case a young person was killed, and you are saying: “The fact that she was charged is beyond me”!! There were two witnesses to the accident, and it looked as if it was her carelessness that caused it, so of course she was prosecuted! Driving without due care and attention is an offence here in Engand, and I would have thought elsewhere too. The fact that the death was not “deliberate” is beside the point – I doubt that she was on trial for premeditated murder. And we object to this public display of hilarity because, whatever the outcome of the case, a young person still died, and his family and friends are still mourning. Perhaps YOU are the one who needs to look more closely at the facts!
June 3, 2009 at 7:47 pm |
i just relized why christian people are crazy…THEY NEVER GET LAYED!!!!!
June 4, 2009 at 1:37 am |
Wake up and smell the coffee!
(PS I did make this point above!!)
June 4, 2009 at 9:33 am |
This looks like a “he said” “she said” case. To convict you need proof. Testimony is not always proof. I’ve sat on a jury where two teens swore one thing, be we felt another. Wearing the habit might sway jurors one way, or another, keep that in mind. The Voire Doire process should have filtered out any catholics or religious leiniencies that could cause bias.
And we don’t know the makeup of the jury here either. Old, young, etc…these things all can make a big difference on the outcome.
I would agree that celebrity and fame can get special treatment, but I’m not sure an obscure nun from some obscure sect is famous or worthy of saying she got special treatment because she was a nun. Remember, we’ve locked up priests, and awarded millions in damages against the church…so let’s not be hasty to rush judgement here…
June 4, 2009 at 8:04 pm |
It strikes me that Christ is not too fussy who he takes to be his bride(s).
June 5, 2009 at 9:17 am |
Turning shoulders away, and looking very far to the left or right, or less eye contact are signs of lying. Looks like a bit of a nervous smile too, still not evidence though.
June 5, 2009 at 10:14 am |
She kind of looks like The Emperor from Stars Wars….the hat as well as the grin, no wonder evil was involved here.
June 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
You people are disgusting. It was an accident.
The victims can still sue her in civil court, which should cheer all of you up quite a bit.
June 5, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
It’s a criminal offense, usually vehicular manslaughter. Running a red light and killing someone isn’t the same thing as accidentally bumping someone’s fender on the way out of a parking lot.
June 11, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
she KILLED someone…lil more than just an “accident”.
June 5, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
All the witness’s were involved in the accident, so no absolute determination can be made.
Maybe in her universe the light was green and the teenagers it was red.
I probably would have ruled not guilty. This was an Accident after all. Its not like she’s a habitual drunk driver or something.
June 5, 2009 at 2:47 pm |
I was unaware that the Jury wasn’t allowed to know it caused a fatality.
That is not Cool and Unjust.
That is what makes me sick. This arguing over what Facts to be in the case.
That is special treatment and unjust.
June 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
You were also obviously unaware that the witness who was “crucified” in court (how ironic!) was about “six car lengths” behind Miss-Goody-Two-Shoes` van at the time of the accident! It`s all in the link!!
June 5, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
[...] What Socialism Looks Like 7. It’s okay for Catholic nuns to run red lights and kill people. Related PostsSome Toast for Your Toaster 1 (100%)Some Toast for Your Toaster 2 (100%)Some Toast [...]
June 5, 2009 at 10:02 pm |
I disagree with most of the posts here by the major atheists. As one, I’m glad that someone is giving the theists what they look like when they are being irrational just because they can and get away with it.
Am I going to chastise? No. But theists, take not of what happens when you just have a reactionary thought process. Also put on these slippers and gloves before you walk in my house so you don’t track the germs inside, only play video games for 1 hour at a time max, and never do any drugs besides alcohol, caffeine, or prescriptions. It all makes sense if you don’t think about it and react to what sounds right.
June 6, 2009 at 12:08 am |
Once again we see the power that can be wielded by The Roman church. It is a sad indictment on our society when we allow religious institutions to have the amount of power thet they do.
In the eyes of the church, surely this nun will go to Hell (if you believe all that crap). I hope she suffers the mental torment and anguish that the family of the deceased are going through right now. I hope the family appeal against the ruling so that this injustice can be righted.
If the hierarchy of the supreme court don’t see this for what it is then maybe it’s time to start again. It is not about “In God We Trust”. It is about plain and simple TRUTH.
June 6, 2009 at 1:11 am |
•I know that nothing I say will break through to anyone, but I feel I must comment if only for my own edification.
•To the defenders of this woman…the thing I find most repulsive is the people who toss this casually aside as “just an accident”, if you were in the place of that kid’s family, if it were your 16 year old son/daughter/sister/brother, you wouldn’t be pleading to the world to give the negligent driver a break, or that it was just an accident. Not to mention, if it were my brother, that picture of them all enjoying a guffaw possibly at the thought of my brother burning in eternal torment because he didnt belong to their cult…..I might be a bit miffed at that picture, in fact, I’m a bit miffed on principle.
•Roughly 90% of the United States is Christian of one sort or another, even those of us who are not are inundated relentlessly, directly and subliminally with the “benevolence” of clergy. Clearly the wearing of her uniform was a direct and subliminal testament to her values, or implied values. It is not significant that the child was a NON-CATHOLIC, an altar boy’s death would have been no less offensive.
•To the person who claimed not to know a “single religious person who has such anger directed at atheists, and am constantly amazed at the hatred that many atheists direct at religious folks who have done them no harm.”
-This is absurd and laughable, if you honestly cannot see why, try telling at least five people a day for the next week that you are an atheist, see how youre treated/looked at.
•Thank you for reading my ramblings.
June 6, 2009 at 1:23 am |
We don’t know the full story, only what the news media printed.
Two points are worth mentioning.
1. What did the witnesses have to gain by telling lies compared with what the nun had to gain by lying?
2. People can tell what they strongly believe to be the truth and yet the facts may fail to support them. The human mind is not especially reliable.
In the absence of traffic camera information I would tend to think that the nun’s version of the story was wishful thinking and the witnesses were correct. But, and it’s a big but, I didn’t hear all the evidence.
Whether the woman is a Catholic nun or a fake Catholic nun is a red herring. The only relevance of this is whether the judge was unreasonably swayed by the woman’s religious vocation into assuming (without due cause) that her testimony was more reliable. If this was the case then the judge should not be sitting on the bench.
June 6, 2009 at 10:25 am |
It baffles me that a nun could lie in court under oath. So much for their holier than thou image.
June 6, 2009 at 12:52 pm |
@George
She probably believed that she was telling the truth. The mind plays tricks with the perception of reality, especially if you have a lot to lose or gain by it.
June 6, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
You guys are just not looking at the facts here! If you read the article you will find, as I have stressed on a number of occasions now, that she did NOT take the stand, therefore, lying or not, she was NOT forced to give evidence under oath!! One can only surmise the reason why her attorney kept her from giving evidence under oath.
June 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
I’d have to see the court transcript, in English, before I could make any kind of informed and reasonable judgment of the outcome of this case. I have plenty of experience with journalists who fail to provide a fair summary of a court case. The aim is to sensationalize in order to sell papers these days. Ethical journalists don’t keep jobs any more.
June 6, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
[...] It is okay for Catholic nuns to run red lights and kill people. Sister Marie Marot, of the the Fraternite Notre Dame order, was found not guilty of running a red light moments before [...] [...]
June 11, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
Lies make baby jesus cry.
June 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
its not a generalization when addressing someone who, as unintentional as it may have been, its STILL vehicular manslaughter…
she SLAUGHTERED a MAN with her carelessness… her incredulity… her nonchalance… her oblivion… her reckless abandon…
all sins i do believe.
as is thou shalt not kill.
to protect and exonerate those who are clearly guilty, to SOME degree, is to justify…
to make amendment to the rule…
and no one is infallible, even the so-called disciples of the lord…
its stands to reason that she is the only guilty one…
recently i read of an officer who was found to not be guilty of crippling a woman in a similar capacity…
she was without the shelter of a car…
would the nun how found the same clemency if she were to have been released from persecution from killing SEVERAL unprotected, unwitting people…
minors no less?!
outrage, folks…
its the general emotion that should be observed here.
_terry
June 14, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
also, dont defend those free from monetary taxation, legislative prosecution and oblivious illusions…
the seminary.
the pontiff.
his people.
and those of “God’s” people.
hes fake.
its all fake.
grow up.
Santa, Easter Bunny, The Great Pumpkin are all composites of each other… and theyre all fake… NOT real…
so by-proxy you look like a fool for your beliefs…
not wrong to believe…
wrong to believe at the cost of being a fool
June 18, 2009 at 10:36 pm |
[...] 4) When nuns are happy. [...]
January 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm |
I recently found your website thus the late comment on the above article. Just for the record, the Fraternite Notre Dame is not affiliated in any way with the Roman Catholic Church and Sr. Marie Marot is not a Roman Catholic sister. I don’t know if they consider themselves a group or a religion. They claim to have been founded by a bishop who had visions of the Virgin Mary to begin the group. The Fraternite has applied for recognition in the Roman Catholic Church, but have always been denied. I thought we should have our facts in order before casting blame.
January 6, 2010 at 10:19 pm |
@Brian
This is a variant on the “not a real Christian” argument.
Regardless of whether these people are accepted by your particular variant of Christianity or not, the bottom line is that they believe that they worship exactly the same god. They have just as much right as you do to believe that this god has revealed himself to them, that they are doing what he wants and that they are in his favor.
Remember that you cannot take the moral high ground on this one considering the web of corruption revealed at all levels of standard mainstream Catholicism in the child rape and physical and mental abuse scandals in Ireland and elsewhere in the world. It is true that this kind of thing goes on behind closed doors in other denominations, sects and cults who also believe that they are the true, or only true, followers of Jesus, or the Yahweh god. All that proves is that this divinity cannot be reliably expected to reveal itself to people who seek him. Nor can he be reliably expected to positively influence these people or to cause them to be models of ethical and humane behavior.
There is no reason to suppose that your behavior would be any better if you were faced with similar situations, stressors and bio-physiology.
The only thing you have proved is that you are quick to reject anyone whose belief system differs from yours should they happen to be caught out in some behavior which you do not approve and which you would like to think you would not copy. The only thing you can be sure of is that when you are caught doing something which other believers don’t approve of you, too, will be rejected as “not truly Christian”, “not truly Catholic” or “not truly the right kind of Catholic”. This kind of intolerance and arrogant superiority is extremely common among bigoted religionists of all varieties. You are clearly no better.
January 7, 2010 at 8:17 am |
I think Rosita needs to take some of what she says to heart. She missed the whole point of my comment. I never said anything about “real” or “not truly”; never said who can be called “Christian” and who cannot. I purposely never used the word “Christian”.
Rosita knows nothing about me; nothing about how I have been hurt by religious people claiming to be the bearers of the Truth. Rosita does not know my story and never bothered to ask before she made her assumptions and accusations. Intolerance and arrogant superiority is extremely common among bigoted people of all varieties. We are all clearly no better.
January 7, 2010 at 8:47 am |
@Brian
Your comments were taken at face value. It sounded like you were condeming the nun’s behavior while upholding the presumed moral superiority of the mainstream Catholic Church .
If there was another agenda behind them it was not clear.
January 7, 2010 at 1:31 pm |
The face value of Brian’s comment: The order to which this nun belongs is not a part of the Catholic Church.
There is nothing about the nun’s behavior or the Church’s character.
Just the simple statement that two organizations are separate.
January 8, 2010 at 8:12 am |
Thank you, Verbifex.
January 8, 2010 at 1:08 pm |
@Brian.
It appears that I misunderstood the intent of your post. I am sorry.
January 8, 2010 at 1:17 pm |
Rosita,
Thank you! I need to work on being clearer when I make a point or share a thought. Some topics are better discussed in person rather than in written communication. But that is not always possible.
Cheers!
March 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm |
There are A LOT of people who really need a hobby. Who cares if the woman was Catholic? She doesn’t need to go to confession nina, because it was an accident. It was not a sin. Not everyone who involuntarily ends someones life goes to jail. My brother was killed by someone who witnesses say blew a red light. That man didn’t even get a ticket. Lay off the woman! As for her looks, you people are pathetic and probably not that great looking either. Its easy to poke fun in writing. isnessie, you chose the picture that we see of you. This woman didn’t choose the picture we see of her. vjack should stick with the issue and get a life. You all talk about her smile, do you expect her never to smile again?! Be serious, we all experience profound grief in life–yet we manage to smile again.
March 26, 2010 at 12:51 pm |
Also, george, nuns do not claim to be holier than thou. In fact, they spend much of their days repenting for the most venial sins. By the way, terry, you are not a theologian. cyclesurfer, why should the jury be told there was a death? Because SOMEONE HAS GOT TO PAY? The boys family will feel MUCH better. rlwemm you are right.
Witnesses are MOSTLY incorrect when telling what they have seen as any Police Officer will tell you. I believe this woman told what she believed to be true, just as the witnesses told what they believed they saw. The bottom line is the judge gave his say and yours doesn’t really count. Miguel,
This IS equally as tragic as if an alter boy was killed. But that is all. A tragic accident.
April 5, 2010 at 10:59 am |
Her order hasn’t to do anything with the catholic church, just read the article.
April 13, 2010 at 4:38 pm |
Regardless of her affiliations with the Roman Catholic Church, this woman is clearly sinister. To actually try to get out of a charge with such overwhelming evidence against you is ludicrous. She undoubtedly knows what she did, and she apparently possesses no remorse for her actions. When there are witnesses who all claim that one person is at fault, usually it goes to show that that person is at fault. I can guarantee whoever is reading this, that if the nun had died, there would have been hell to pay for the car full of teenagers, but the fact that it was the other way around swings the verdict in favor of nun, whose stereotype is probably a lot less malicious than those of the teenagers’. This is just evidence of another corruption of the justice system. Hoofuckingrah!
June 6, 2010 at 3:27 am |
Those Nuns kinda have the hurr hurp a derp look on their faces.