The thing is if it were just religion that made her favor the defendent, I would think it wrong too. My point was more about the legal aspect because in a number of cases I know the judge has made the decision before they sit on the bench. They look at a lot of data and they don't always reveal it.

I wasn't saying she didn't use religion, just that I'd be surprised.

Judges can also be influenced like anyone ( knows the barrister or some such).

In another discussion on this I said what she says as her rationale, may leave something out.

In this case, the Judge saw fit to cite religion as a reason why the defendant would not go to prison. The fact that religion was taken into consideration at all is a clear example of religious privilege.

See this is a whole different debate.

Though one could argue and supply supporting evidence that some minorities commit a high proportion of crime than there demographic represents. But we're not discussing that.

Also, a Judge who actually came out and stated that race was a factor in his/her sentencing decisions wouldn't be judging for much longer.

Yet Cherie Blair thought her religious bias was so acceptable that she explicitly cited religion as a reason why the defendant wouldn't be imprisoned.

You don't offend me. I have not read all the thread but as for bigotry against religion I have only this afternoon had a robust clash with another non-believer who I believed was talking intolerance of religion. On the compulsory religious education thread I think it might was. Did you see that?

That would be me. I stand by it. Remove it from all aspects of public life. Beyond that, people can do as they please as long as its legal

The world would be infinitely better. Of course some would lag behind and appear more out of touch than they already do.

One day hopefully. Acheved through education not force.

Not what I understood you to say earlier. I thought you wanted everyone with a religion to be barred from public office.

No I haven't seen it. But I understand you try to take a balanced view, as much as any of us can because we all have some bias.

Likewise I would imagine if some hate spewing fundie came on board with homophobia, and basic intolerance no one on this side would be quick to defend them, quite the opposite.

Not at all. As long as there job comes first.

If their faith causes a conflict of issues then they can't perform their duties. At that point they shouldnt be in public office.

I think it should be written into contracts too. You pray and conduct religious activities on your own time.

Unless they were strict devout christians, Muslims or jews.

Then the reaction may be different.

What would be my reaction, do tell.

No exception for religions which hold that use of illegal entheogens is their religious right?

Nothing is ever quite "end of" imho.

It isn't a whole different debate though. It's pointing out how statistics can be used.

There are more blacks in jail proportionately than whites. Yet very few blacks are atheists, maybe 3%.

So of course there will be more religious.

Further there are much fewer Catholics so how is that explained if it's religion.

Are you a strict, devout person of faith who doesn't pick and choose bits?

Or are you a casual believer?

Lots of prisoners turn to religion in prisons, even if they arn't religious, it's a good way to get out of their cells for a couple of hours or more a week for services, or even get special food.

I believe you're referencing a small syncretic sect somewhere in south America.

The end of argument and examples go far beyond special dispensation for religion.

I'll tell you when you answer my question. What should my reaction be?

Is this the example Archiver is speaking of.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/..._court_curious

Size and location is significant to the argument? The Rastafarian religion is a fairly well known example, although Istr there is greater acceptance in Jamaica these days.


Who are you speaking for there? Yourself? I expect you could get a wealth of disagreement if you start a thread suggesting that.

Religion is a bane on human existence. It's for some a comfort, but ultimately it's a form of control and manipulation.

What should it be? Wholly against such views.

What will it be? Only you know. A devout strict believer might have views incompatible with modern society though.

Catholics are born with inbuilt guilt.

source: myself.

Obvious question is obvious, but, is this a joke?

If not the answer is "Have you thought the premise might be wrong?".

Wholly against what views

I believe in God. Your right and choice

I believe homosexuality is not part of Gods plan. Disagree

I think my beliefs are the correct ones. Disagree

This is the belief that works for me. Your right and choice

I think my beliefs should be given legal precedence over the rights of others. Disagree

Seems like only yesterday you expressed an interest in the subject and I linked to a pamphlet with a whole world of cited examples you could have referenced.

Is your interest to ridicule the idea?