Is it?

I have always tried to be a decent bloke even though I know there is no great force watching over me and going to punish me for any misdeeds I may commit.

It's harder that way - not just popping down to confession to the local virgin in a collar.

I own all my mistakes - whatever I have done I have done of my own free will.

It demonstrates he's not always capable of controlling his temper and violent urges when faced with a trivial everyday event.

But he goes to a mosque and probably likes kittens so let's not be too harsh on him, eh?

But you manage to be decent person without a god. So you are evidence it is not complete nonsense.

Probably not, but when its the actions of someone claiming the moral high ground, then yes.

Any Athiests willing to address the balance and start committing crimes?

Go on, be good sports.

If I had assaulted someone in an ATM queue and was truly religious I doubt I would be discrediting my religion by using it as a mitigating circumstance.

Not since he did the deed, but before that he may have been. He pled guilty that's a favorable thing to the judge.

The reason I say that she misspoke, is that regardless of what she said, she didn't give him a lesser sentence than anyone else would get. Maybe more.

6 months in jail, suspended sentence, two years probation and 200 hours community service, isn't a light sentence. It's standard or on the harsh end.

And that's the point. Playing up the jaw punching just makes it sound as if he was treated more leniently than someone else.

He wasn't.

You don't know this; it is just a guess; why say you do?

Because I gave a link where the sentence was checked.

BIB: Yeah, he may have been. Or he may have attacked loads of people before and never been caught. We can all speculate but what purpose does that serve?

Playing up the jaw punching? How am I playing anything up? I'm referring to what he admitted to doing and was charged with and wondering how you interpreted what little we know about him (he regularly attended a mosque but attacked someone in an ATM queue) to mean he was a pillar of the community.

Imo its not about discrediting your religion but more about the individual committing the crime.
Just because someone follows a religion doesn't give them special disposition when it comes to sentencing.

Playing it up to make it sound as if she treated a violent thug differently than she should have. But she did not.

That's utter nonsense. I never even mentioned Cherie Blair or the sentence she gave him.

The only thing I was questioning was your interpretation that he was a pillar of the community.

Well we're discussing this case not just one sentence.

We don't have any idea he committed crimes he wasn't caught for either.

And you did mention let's not be too harsh but she was actually.

I don't understand this.


I know we don't have any idea he committed crimes he wasn't caught for. Same as we have no idea he was a 'pillar of the community'.
That's why I asked: "We can all speculate but what purpose does that serve?"


Again, I was referring to your assumption that he was a pillar of the community because he'd been described as 'devout'.

Well yes that's the impression I get from the word devout. God fearing, dedicated sincere. Not someone going around fighting people.

That's how he was described prior to the argument.

So we all have an interpretation and that was mine.

Described erroneously it seems if your definition of devout is correct because he was caught doing just that.

Or maybe he just forgot he was devout that day?

No, sentencing decisions are made on what the person was like before the crime.

It's obvious that on the day of the crime they were breaking the law.

Like the man in question I have no previous criminal convictions. If I went out tomorrow and broke someone's jaw because I thought I'd arrived at an ATM before them and they'd pushed in would you be suggesting I was as a pillar of the community?

Having confession handy doesn't explain why fewer Catholics are in jail. By your reckoning there should be more.

Mr Miah also owned his mistake. He pled guilty.

Probably not.

Why not?

Why would atheists automatically commit crimes?

You don't have to be religious to know right from wrong.

Agnostic and atheist people can be good people.

You get good and bad everywhere.

Has anyone said atheists would automatically commit crimes?

No but the implication was being atheist made likely commit crimes.