I don't see that said or implied anywhere.

The guy we were talking about admitted to a crime.

I took it from thread title I suppose should have read more.

bolly, how many times would I have to attend a mosque (or other religious place) before you would be consider me a pillar of the community?

I'm only referring to the description of him in the news.

Not about how many times he attended.

Not even my personal opinion of him.

So, for me to be considered a pillar of the community by you, all I'd need is a news source to say I was devoutly religious? That's the only difference I can see between the man we are discussing and me should I go out and break someone's jaw over an argument about who arrived at an atm queue first.

No that's distorting what I said.

I said I can only go by the news description of him, that gives the impression he was a devout person up to that time. And that may have influenced her decision.

And as we don't have a transcript of the trial, we don't really know all that she said. Or even what she said.

To me it looks as if the media glommed on it to try to make it look as if a thug got a special sentence.

And then people got outraged over that.

It was directly implied by the OP.

The thread title is why aren't atheists commiting more crimes?

And based on the idea that they are commiting fewer crimes because there are fewer atheists in jail.

Not that the statistics make a lot of sense.

Again, I am not discussing what Cherie Blair did. I'm interested in why you 'probably' wouldn't form the same opinion of me as you did of him if I committed exactly the same crime seeing as he had no previous criminal record and neither do I.

Because I have history posting with you.

Seriously, this isn't about you.

It's about your obvious bias towards anyone described as devout.

If you attacked somebody I'd judge you on the circumstances of that incident, not the crap you'd posted on here.

Do you have evidence of that.

If you committed a crime after never having had any legal problems before, and were described as an ideal person up to that time, and you took responsibility for what you did, I would take that into account, surely.

Yes, I can read.


Pretty sure Louise32 was responding to the OP, where there was no mention of those things.

'An ideal person'. Really? According to whom?

I have a job. I pay my taxes. I don't have a criminal record. Is that ideal?

Well anyway we don't have data that atheists aren't commiting crimes. Or more crimes.

IF you were summarized as that in the docunents the court had.

Then that would be taken into account.

What is the criteria for being an ideal person? I have a job. I don't have a criminal record. I pay my taxes. Is that ideal? If not what am I missing?

Well let's say the judge receives character references on you. Not only do you have a job, but your boss writes that you rarely miss a day of work and you have a consistently excellent annual evaluation, are always professional. And the community agency you are active in, comments on your regular attendance and commitment. And other persons from the community write in to attest about you and how you helped others with problems they had, volunteered and they thought you were an outstanding person, an ideal member of the community.

That would be taken into account and why not.

Let's say you had your jaw broken twice for no good reason by two people with no previous convictions. Once by someone who got a good reference from their boss and did some volunteering and once by someone who was an unemployed hermit.

You, as the victim, would suffer the same both times.

Would it really matter if someone previously thought your attacker was an ideal member of the community or not? They've both committed the same offence against you.

Now you're adding another element that didn't occur in the case we're discussing.

A judge can never know that the person won't ever commit a crime again.

He or she can only go on the available information, as to how likely it is that the defendant can learn from this incident. It's not a science.

Further it's assumed that the person who lacks social supports and has little to lose, is the more likely to do it again.

It's not how much someone suffers, it's whether the defendant is likely to learn from probation and community service, to not do it again.

Nonsense in the sense of invoking sky daddies etc, to mock and diminish.

That comes no where near to addressing a spiritually derived system of beliefs, ethics and morals, and the purpose they serve.

You don't need a greater force watching over you, and it's harder that way. Well that's nice and sanctimonious and self regarding. But I can only take you're word for that. You may well just be another lying bastard on the internet, that the science that underpins your non belief would posit that you had no choice in the matter anyway. You were programmed to act that way.

What's nonsense in your post is this whole theme of superiority and cherry picked data to shore that up. What's so dumb about so many atheists is how they play the saviour while acting in the very same way as the thing they claim to despise, and what's even dumber is they get all hurt and confused that insulting vast swathes of people, ends in people mistrusting them.

That should read, and start admitting they commit crimes.

Being good sports isn't something the tub thumpers are renowned for.

It actually demonstrates he was incapable of it once.

He may well be a violent thug, I don't know, but the system works in that way to take into account previous history and character, not favour the religious.

IIRC I remember you have often argued that justice should be restorative not punative. Is that something the religious should be exempt from too.

I agree the two ideas are not alternatives just different aspects.

That's the point. Suspended sentences used to be rare but now they're used commonly. They don't convey that the judge found the person not guilty or anything. Just capable of doing the punishment outside prison. In the U.S. at least, the person has to report to an officer usually once a week, pays court costs and fines into the thousands, do many hours of unpaid work, can't travel outside the county.

As the lawyer blog said, the media ran with this story but what she said about his being religious didn't change that he got a sentence within the guidelines.