I didn't ADD it. That's the entire basis of what I'm saying, that studies show that attending church supports moral behavior. And that some psychologists recommend being involved in a religion. AA is religious and has good outcomes.

Total nonsense to say that coming from a religious background would suggest a longer sentence. Not even sure where this idea of superiority comes from. Maybe from an atheist imagination.

The clue was when I said "as batgirl said"

So you would be happy with a statement of
"“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and studies have shown those attending chuch (even though you are a muslim) support moral behaviour and have not been in trouble before," she told him at Inner London Crown Court. "

which I would classify as absurd reasoning.

it would also result in agnostics and none "church" going Christians from receiving harsher sentences than those in the dock with them charged for the same crime.

ie religious profiling. Just don't complain when some countries use their state instructed reasoning to determine that those of faith should get harsher sentences because they come from a morally corrupt background

See, if I asked if you think those things are equivalent to a person's religion, and/or their preference for body art - you'd be accusing me of putting words in your mouth.


Sneering at the judge!! Hang 'im. "Dealing drugs" is a worthy occupation in some parts.


Or can afford to have tattoos removed.

Anyway. You carry on saying whatever you like about anything and I'll thank my lucky stars you don't rule the world.

I have a good friend that grew up as a pastors son. He stop believing years ago. He is a self proclaimed atheist. He is an extremely good person. It is very strange. I am not the type of person to push my beliefs on others. I try to except them for who they are. Who am I to judge? I don't know how to answer you question. Maybe they keep themselves in check out of fear that they might be judged if they mess up. You can just picture a believer saying" see you messed up" great question. I'm stumped. Lol

Are you speaking for batgirl?

I don't think the judge has to lay out her entire reasoning. It may be I see you're a famous biologist and I think you are knowledgeable enough to know what it will do to your reputation if you keep punching people. And I see that you took responsibility for what you did. In addition I know your lawyer from the country club who assures me you're a good fella. I got a thousand letters from your fans. And further if I don't give you a suspended sentence I'll be accused of injustice against atheists.

No she doesn't have to say that and probably should not.

To add, there are more Christians in jail!

No but I referenced what she said


She should clarify if she says "I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person" ..because otherwise it shows she religiously profiled someone. As I said before it seems she is equating "religious person" to "good person", which as we know to our cost is not the same.

So then she misspoke as I said in the first place!

You may think she's equating being religious with being good, but that's just your interpretation. I didn't read it like that. I saw it more as you should know better.

I've talked to people who make a display of being devout but breaking the law and I say, you know that's haram.

And further if that's your position then judges shouldn't have any leeway for subjective interpretation. No hearing victim witness statements or anything.

A bit overly dramatic maybe? It's not hanging someone, it's the judge's discretion to rule for the harsher end of the sentence or the more lenient end.

And the guy in question was actually at the harsher end. So being devout didn't get him much that anyone else could have had.

A suspended sentence isn't a walk in the park.

And once again I'm only telling you how judges are I didn't say I made then that way.

That you turn on a sixpence and go right off him because he disagrees with Dawkins about consciousness.

Hardly pissing on him, just pointing out the weakness of his argument.

Isn't it a conundrum saying Christians get let off crimes, but there are more Christians in jail than atheists.

What is it that's actually happening.

Perhaps neither.

Actually I can understand bolly's confusion here to some extent. She comes from what has become* a more conservative culture where equal opportunities and respecting diversity etc does not seem to have spread as far as encompassing religion.

I an still much more surprised by Cherie Blair's blind spot on this issue. Mind she always seemed to have a tendency to be vulnerable to a plausible (or even not so plausible) chancer IMO of course.

*Obviously the USA was in the past a far more progressive society than the UK but that has been reversed. Even in the mid 20thC IBM (for good business reasons) was still at the forefront of eliminating unfair practice in the workplace.

It's not confusion and it's not about respecting diversity, that has nothing to do with it.

It's about seeing that certain systems correlate with better behavior. AA that is essentially a religious or higher power based organization, is another one that judges recognize and would probably consider attendance when deciding on a sentence.

The U.S. hasn't reversed in anything. There's nothing wrong with recognizing the role of religion and spirituality in healing. This is progress.

The justice system is way to complex and subjective for anyone to start arguing on what should or shouldn't count.

We seem to be going down a road of implication about special treatment for the religious which, while I think that's a false assumption, it cannot be argued against any more than the plea of 'previous good character, which is again fairly open to subjective interpretation. I'm thinking this is more about a grudging resentment that religion and moral standing can and do count in society, but not to the point of a free pass on any crime in any circumstance.

Exactly. If the religious are favored, why are so many put in prison? That's a real head scratcher.

More likely it correlates with poverty, lack of education, drug use and mental illness.

Many blacks are in prison and only about 3% are atheist.

I don't think there is anything very complex about saying that a persons sex; race; sexuality or religion should not be a factor in sentencing or suspending sentencing. It is just basic equality and justice.

IIRC you used this case as an example of legal prejudice against atheists. Isn't that absurd reasoning, given the many, many cases where people have gotten off for far worse and often repeated crimes, and their religion doesn't even get raised.

Do you not wonder if the key phrase 'not been in trouble before, might have more bearing on the decision, when taken in context.

Except no one is saying it's someone's religion. What I'm saying in that there are religious organizations and programs like AA with spiritual content, that can help people.

Would you be against a judge giving credit to someone for attending AA?

It rather depends on the crime, the context and the qualia surrounding it IMO.

Well apart from Cherie Blair who said “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before,"

Perhaps this escaped your notice in which case your confusion is understandable.

He wasn't given a suspended sentence just because he said he belonged to a religion though, was he?

If that was true she would have a pattern of lighter sentences to those who named a religion.

My understanding from what we know (that isn't much) is that he was devout. I interpret that as meaning he attended services, was a pillar of the community and such.

Not just, had a religion.

Plus it wasn't a lighter sentence. It was the same or harsher.

He violently attacked someone and broke their jaw in a row over who was next in a queue at an ATM. Does that really sound like the actions of a 'pillar of the community' to you?

Because atheists don't need the Big Bad Sky Daddy to be decent OP - they just are.

My advice is that if one does not have 'much' knowledge about any given situation it is wise not to invent things.

Nonsense of course.

Does that one event define him absolutely then.