Hi All.
I thought I would post this now because I a away for a week. Give our mate Bozzie time to build a defence. [Hi buddy ]

With all the conflict in religion and arguments over who is right or
wrong [according to which ever `good book` one reads]- it kind of makes you wonder if at times justice isn’t really being over looked.


A few months ago in Queensland Brisbane a child’s pet goat was stolen.

The little girl’s beloved pet was named Mandy.

Mandy was taken to a Church where she was slowly butchered to death as a joke according to the forty plus woman who was the offender.

Judge Costello allowed this woman to walk free with no goal no fine and no recorded conviction against her name.

It seemed that the ‘Church had forgiven’ her.

Nobody even bothered about the seriously distort little girl or what Mandy went through.

They would have laughed if you said this woman maliciuosly tortured and mudered Many. Yet that is what happend.

I have also noted the Premier of QLD the Police Ministers office all have this unspoken understanding that oh well `the Church forgave her`.

Reading other cases involving murder of people and crimes abuse, or bodily harm this seems to at times be a pattern or cop out.

So I am wondering would it not be wise to have a dury in serious cases that are all Atheists.

At least that way people like the little girl who lost her beloved friend Mandy and ‘Mandy’ herself may get some justice.

Quite frankly I don’t forgive this woman along with just about everybody else I have spoken to.

So how can a court or Church give this murdering cruel woman a free ticket in the name of `any religion`.

Lets ask the Atheists to step up and use their common sense to help keep some morals in our system and courts.

I say not in my name do I agree this woman should have walked free and keep “your religion out of the courts.”

Sounds like the case should be appealed and the woman's mental stability determined.

Oliver

Thanks for your comment.I agree.

She did not claim any mental set back and it was just accepted as a bad joke and she was sorry. It was put down to `poor judgment` and much made of the fact the church where she took it to had "forgiven her"
. I assume they also meant for the mess- after she broke in.

Clearly IMOP someone knew the church leader and went light on her. I think it was a local woman.

The AT says he cant appeal The Police Minister office say it must come from the Police Commissions office[which would sound right to me]
The police Commissions office said because it was heard in the Magistrates court and not the district court they cant.

The QLD Premier doesnt want to know about it and Kevin Rudds advisor was informed at the time it was happening and Kevin Rudd was in Brisbane that day.

Its also only fair to say that the head of the church did say later that it was awful and he wasnt happy she got off either.

However that said=- Surley the Church has a duty to yell scream and appeal demand and set an example.

To be honest if we had not contacted him outraged! I am sure they would not have said even much in my own heart.

As for this Magistrate Costello he needs to stand down because RSPCA have worked so hard to demand the laws that are in place are enforced and idiots like these put back their efforts every day of the week.

I am away for a week from early morning
thanks Again for your interest in this matter.

I honestly think we need religion out of our legal system to get justice!
Lets face it the Church cares little for Animals anyway.

http://www.livexports.com/hughwirth.html

so, who should dispense justice? aside from you and me, that is..

you seem to think judges are god-like creatures, who can be relied on not to have the weaknesses of ordinary mortals. not so, in my experience.

No I think religion should not over rule justise and common sense
That is what the thread is about.
It should be above any book= It should be fair= clear= and dont you think thats a bit much Demos.
The Church forgave her so the judge lets her walk
Off now-
Thanks for your comment and reply in a week or so.

I honestly think we need religion (and superstitution in general) out of our entire society to get justice, not to mention a huge number of other desirable outcomes. But making rules that are actively prejudiced against believers is unlikely to be the right way to do it (though it must be said, it appeared to work surprisingly well in some Communist countries, such as East Germany, where religious belief reportedly dropped as low as 9%. But totalitarian communism is far too high a price to pay for the eradication of organised religion).

Another case of confusing Law with Justice, two apparently different things in many cases.

How would a jury be made up and how would it be selected?
How would this be a "jury of peers" if the defendant was a proclaimed athiest and the jurors were not?

If religion was the dominating force in this case, I suppose that the woman would have been burned as a witch.

PALEIF,

On the information supplied, it appears justice has been denied. If the magistrate, who would have had all the information to allow for a decision, has erred, then the church in question, or indeed the parent of the child or a legal representative on her/his/their behalf must approach the Police Commissioner to lodge an appeal. This seems necessary, not only for the sake of justice for the child and the goat but to make sure the woman who committed the crime has access to treatment. She has displayed behaviour well beyond what could be classed as ‘normal’ in Australian society.

The wider implications of having only Atheists as Judge and jury, is somewhat involved. The law is set up in such a way that if any of us offend against the public-interest, then judgement is by our peers pooled from the public. The controlling factor, which attempts to eliminate the prejudices existing in the community, is the Judge or magistrate, who instructs the jury about personal bias affecting decisions the jury makes. Unfortunately, sometimes, the partiality of the Judge or magistrate can interfere with the proceedings. An appeal may then be necessary.

Religious predisposition is not the only bias that exists. Atheists have them as well. However, I will say, even though Atheism is not an automatic inoculation against idiocy, it is better, in the broader consensus sense, than any other way. Better is not good enough though and the jury or magistrate may be in the idiocy-bracket of Atheism.

It just has to be accepted, that humans are fallible critters. What it all boils down to is that reason, rationality and compassion must be the guide in all decision making. Populist public-values can interfere with justice. To use the example of the Aztecs, as I often do; the tradition of sacrificing humans was only acceptable and quite legal to them -it is not to us. And I would hastily add, if they possessed the same information as do we, then their humans sacrificing days would cease.

Therefore, the answer to the proposition is a definitive no.

Davi

As usual, I'm largely in agreement with wiz.

While making atheism a prerequisite for jury duty would undoubtedly raise the collective intelligence of juries, this would not only be unworkable but would also discriminate against a significant proportion of the communities they are supposed to represent.

Not that juries aren't stacked anyway. On the occasions when I've been called up, I have invariably been disqualified by counsel, apparently on no more basis than the fact that I was employed as an academic at the time.

The atheist judges have already decided it is okay to murder unborn children in the name of science or women's rights. God help us if they continue to have their way! There will not be many kids left in the public school system if they continue follow the dogmas of secular humanism also.

I can't comprehend how this woman got off scott free. Was a jury involved? I don't agree that only atheists should be on a jury.
That would be biased. The same as selecting only religious people would be biased. Potential jurors are chosen from voting registers or other local government lists. Certain people are exempt or disqualified. These include people over a specified age, convicted criminals, those employed in the administration of justice and some professional people in the public service.

I like the fact that jurors are chosen at random for each trial. But I also like the fact that the defending lawyers may challenge a certain number of jurors before they are sworn in. I think that seeing as all jurors may be questioned to see if they are biased or prejudiced - the system is quite a fair one.

I don't understand what went wrong in this case. It sounds that a miscarriage of justice has definitely taken place and some one should appeal the verdict.

It doesn't appear to be true that there cannot be an appeal because the matter was heard in a magistrate's court.

See the cases that this search produces

http://tinyurl.com/yojxj4

However, for an appeal to succeed, the sentence has to be "manifestly inadequate", which is quite a difficult test to meet.

Another difficulty would now arise, in that the appeal would be out of time. The court would have to give leave to allow the appeal to go ahead, and there would have to be special circumstances explaining the lateness of the appeal. Merely saying "we didn't realise we could" wouldn't cut it.

Sylvia.

Hi there Pale.. I'm with you on this one... Church should never be a sanctuary for cruelty like that.

My little kitty sneaks in with me under the blankets.. she loves me..and me her.

but the fur flies a bit if 'Pus' (our older cat) is already there and 'baby' comes along ... meeeeeeOUWWW pfffsstt..pfffssst..

WIZO.. you reallllly need counselling me boy... I mean.. *grrrr* all religious (aka superstition in wizzo's mind) should be out ? no no noooo... heaven (literally)forbid. It's only a problem if a person judges or assesses according to their world view..and of course, atheists don't have one of those...now do they ? :)

Though I find the action carried out in a Church to be abhorrent to me there is not enough evidence given to make a judgment. Was the child the daughter of the charged person? Was the goat the property of the child? If the woman was not related to the child and it was the property of another then the criminal act of theft makes her guilty! Was the goat the property of the woman charged? Who laid the charges? Were they laid by a person disgruntled with the woman? What was the purpose of the woman's slaughter of the goat?

BOAZ, I don't need counselling - the problem is solving itself gradually anyway. Organised religion has been losing its grip on society for centuries, and indeed for almost all of the developed world (except perhaps the U.S., which is several decades behind) it's clearly on the way out.

In a few hundred years' time Christianity will be seen as being as quaint a notion as the Roman and Greek Gods seem to us now.

wizofaus,
I might inform you that this claim that Christianity will become extinct is made in every generation. It is not a new claim. It was made in the time of the first followers of Christ by a Jew who said that persecution would only grow the followers so leave them be and the followers will soon dissapear.

The most agregious insult of the day:

<<While making atheism a prerequisite for jury duty would undoubtedly raise the collective intelligence of juries,>>

WOW.. and you feel I have issues ? :) onya CJ.. next time we need a totally unbiased, non bigoted, fair minded person.. we'll call on you for not only your high moral and human qualities,but your superior intelligence also.. *smack*

Wizo.. no I have to disagree..you DO need counselling.. but the OLO kind should do it. I'll work with you to overcome this 'historical blind spot' which you appear to be blighted with.

Christianity, in developed (but degenerate) countries is experiencing a verse of scripture:

Galatians 5:1
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

then...

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love.

You see.. the freedom we have in this life, is progressively being used for 'the sinful nature' because put simply, that is the line of least resistance. Its where the money is.. the cheap irresponsible pleasures... the 'easssssy' way.

But things can only go so far because people realize just how lost they, and their society is.. and then we have a revival like in Wales in 1905 or.. God simple waters plants in other countries.

Philo, and where's the evidence that the previous claimants were wrong? No religion lasts forever. Though undoubtedly some have been impressively tenacious.

BOAZ, there will always be people are opting for "cheap irresponsible pleasures" in preference to more meaningful, worthwhile pursuits. But I never saw religion as a meaningful, worthwhile pursuit.

Boaz,

I'd have to agree with Wizofaus. It may take a few hundred years, but unless our scientific discoveries do a complete 180° turn (which looks more and more unlikely everyday), then yes, eventually the monotheistic God will join the dusty bookshelves along with Thor, Zeus and Apollo.

This also sounds like a good time to remind you of a quote that is so very true; Which I'm sure you've heard before, but it bears repeating:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” - Steven Weinburg.

With the conflict that religion aids and causes, it's certainly not the answer to anything much at all.

I know what you're thinking: “But if every one found the REAL God then there wouldn't be much conflict.”

No. We'd be stuck in the middle-ages with little technology, still burning people at the stake for things like adultery and blasphemy.

And the excuse that we would have eventually learned to interpret the Bible “correctly” by following Jesus' teachings, does little more than punch a massive hole in the theory that morality is dependent on the Bible.

There had to be another influence of some sort working to help us to know how to interpret the Bible in a more civil way, and cherry-pick the good bits. Because it certainly wasn't the Bible that gave us this ability, considering the horrors and atrocities of the Old Testament God.

And yes, I know what you're thinking here too: “It's Jesus and the Holy Spirit that help us to know how to interpret the Bible correctly.”

No, not necessarily at all.

There are plenty of visible signs, in all species, that demonstrate that our ability to know what parts of the Bible are the good bits, comes from an evolutionary survival mechanism called "morality".

So yeah... What was I saying again? Oh, that's right... I agree entirely with Wizofaus and I certainly don't think religion is an answer.

I would of thought that it is obvious that when people deny truth that they easily swallow a lie. The belief system of the secular humanist in the name of science (not real science of course) holds as many if not more dogmas than many religions. Those who believe that belief in Christ will die out are dreaming. If throwing men into pots of oil, torturing and thrown men in prison who had seen the risen Lord was not enough to kill truth then nothing will. The church of Jesus Christ is in a healthy state and their are now more believers then ever before. The hopeless flaws that have led to untold misery by the secular humanist dogmas only assist His church in growing.

From the opening premise of this debate the atheists felt that injustice was being carried out by not imposing steeper penalties or fines upon guilty persons. Of course this was done by one with a personal agenda to stop all animal slaughter. They were blaming the Church for giving lenient sentences. Their bigoted and unbalanced bias against Christians is now showing. They have an agenda against the Church and its members - it would be the same agenda as was demonstrated in atheist China and the former USSR. The religious and Christians especially are the blight and scum of humanity, they must be eradicated.

Yet they turn around and accuse Christians of injustice done in the name of Christ. Are the Christians today more humane by not imposing heavy penalties [including death] on the guilty, or are they still burning witches at the stake? It is obvious that atheists would put to death murderers, rapists etc, that Christians give opportunity to repent.

Yet atheists still make the claim they are more humane than Christians. Why? Because they are not imposing heavy penalties at Court. What are the facts? Do atheists want heavier penalties including longer prison terms and death or are they using double speak? Can the atheists here start speaking balanced justice or are they going to demonstrate the same sort of double speaks and bigotry in Courts

Runner, there may be more believers than ever before, but there are also vastly more unbelievers than ever before too.
Either way, the total percentage of humans that have ever existed who believed in your particular God is small and decreasing.

Runner,

<<I would of thought that it is obvious that when people deny truth that they easily swallow a lie.>>

Damn Strait!

<<The belief system of the secular humanist in the name of science (not real science of course) holds as many if not more dogmas than many religions.>>

Atheism is not a belief system. It’s the lack of a set belief system, and independent thought based on rational thinking. So your point here is irrelevant.

<<If throwing men into pots of oil, torturing and thrown men in prison who had seen the risen Lord was not enough to kill truth then nothing will.>>

Common sense, rationality, the advancement of civilization and scientific discoveries are far more effective than you’re medieval way of thinking.

<<The church of Jesus Christ is in a healthy state and their are now more believers then ever before.>>

Percentages, runner, percentages.

<<The hopeless flaws that have led to untold misery by the secular humanist dogmas only assist His church in growing.>>

As opposed to the large-scale misery caused by religious wars and terrorism throughout history?

Philo,

<<From the opening premise of this debate the atheists felt that injustice was being carried out by not imposing steeper penalties or fines upon guilty persons.>>

No. The opening premise was more that criminals shouldn’t be able to get off lightly because of religion.

<<They have an agenda against the Church and its members…>>

Now you’re just making things up again.

<<…it would be the same agenda as was demonstrated in atheist China and the former USSR.>>

…and again.

<<The religious and Christians especially are the blight and scum of humanity, they must be eradicated. >>

…and again.

<<Yet they turn around and accuse Christians of injustice done in the name of Christ.>>

Not all Christians. But yes, there certainly are some Christians who do commit injustices in the name of Christ.

China and the Soviet Union never did what they did (or do what they do) ‘in the name of’ Atheism, it’s done to suppress the people. There’s a big difference.

Obviously the Steve Weinberg quote I mentioned before goes strait over your head.

<<Are the Christians today more humane by not imposing heavy penalties [including death] on the guilty, or are they still burning witches at the stake?>>

Yes. But not so much in the US though, unfortunately.

<<It is obvious that atheists would put to death murderers, rapists etc, that Christians give opportunity to repent.>>

And here you are making things up again.

<<Yet atheists still make the claim they are more humane than Christians.>>

…and again

<<Why? Because they are not imposing heavy penalties at Court.>>

…and again.

<<What are the facts? Do atheists want heavier penalties including longer prison terms and death or are they using double speak?>>

And again, Atheists are independent thinkers. Atheism is not a belief system. So you can’t speculate about ‘what Atheists want’ in this respect.

<<Can the atheists here start speaking balanced justice…>>

They already have been.

Thank you both Runner and Philo, for making clear, the subtle point I was trying to make previously about rational thinking and the lack there of.

AJ Philips: "Thank you both Runner and Philo, for making clear, the subtle point I was trying to make previously about rational thinking and the lack there of."

How unusual to see Philo, runner and rational thinking mentioned in the same sentence!

Runner and Wizofaus,

An interesting article for you both - with some actual statistics - http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/77/p8-12_AR77_web.pdf

Cheers,

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming

This is an appalling situation - aren't there RSPCA laws in place to address this type of cruelty? Whether the church has forgiven her is not the issue, the current law which she appears to have broken is. From what I understand, Catholics can be absolved of sin/crime in the confessional, but this does not in any way absolve them, in law, from the consequences of their actions.

Perhaps someone can correct me ... but I think the laws regarding burning witches at the stake have not been repealed - so, applying the "logic" evidenced in this particular case, some churches could have a field day ...

I don't agree with discriminating against either religions or atheists regarding judges and juries; this could present problems in itself. Also, so many people are nominally a religion, but do not adhere to, let alone contemplate any religious beliefs.

Oliver, I am entirely with you - the woman's mental stability is in question. She is unquestionably sadistic - not only in her action of killing the goat, but also in her utter disregard for the child's feelings.

There is a recognized connection between children who torture animals and their later development into serial killers

Wobbles, while interesting, it's not all that meaningful just to look at the situation for one country over the last few decades.

The total number of humans that have ever existed is in the order of 100 billion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#_note-haub)

If we allow for a gradual ramp up from 0% of the population in 0AD to 30% of the total population now, that means ~15% of everyone who has ever lived since 0AD were/are Christians, out of a total number of about 60 billion humans (see previous link), giving 9 billion. We'll round that up to conclude that at most 10% of all humans that have ever existed were/are Christians. Hence apparently 90% of all the souls God personally breathed life into are now burning in hell.

Seeing as Christianity has now been growing more slowly than Islam and secularism for quite some time, that percentage will only ever go down, barring of course a proven second coming!

Wobbles

The statistics quoted do indicate a decline in church attendance and even belief among those in the Western world. Wherever there is materialism and comfort their is generally a corresponding apathy in spiritual matters. It has never been any different. Jesus Himself rebuked the lukewarm church because they were comfortable and became cold towards spiritual matters. It is generally not so much that people don't believe than they enjoy the pleasures of sin more than the acceptance of God. I am sure many of the posters here fall in that category. Where there is poverty and persecution the church is at its strongest. China is one of the best examples of this where believers are at incredibly high numbers despite the governments attempts to outlaw and persecute the believers. Along with the devil the vast majority of Australians still believe Jesus to be the Son of God. While faith in Christ might be declining in the West overall it has never been healthier.

I don't think it very helpful to point the finger at religion in general. A Jesuit priest was an adviser to NASA some years ago, and I doubt very much if he advised that all that was needed for "lift off" was prayer.

I am sure that there are some atheists who have strange ideas.

I am also sure that neither religions nor atheists have the monopoly on compassion.

The big concern at present is that fundamentalism in all religions is on the rise. In the US, we have seen sections of the community setting up educational bodies teaching creationism; now England is following suite. Why creationism is now grabbing the imagination of some sections of society is beyond belief ... Even devout people of simplist beliefs would surely see that evolution supports a much grander plan.

However, there should be much concern at the issue raised by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming that a person who has committed a crime can escape prosecution based on absolution from a church. Also, surely what this woman did would be desecration of a church ... Isn't this a criminal act? The entire matter sounds like something from deepest "Hicksville" - it certainly would make for a compelling and fictional story; but, surely not some real event in this country.

Runner,
"Where there is poverty and persecution the church is at its strongest"?

I agree that he so-called Bible belt in the USA (where the church is strongest) also has the lowest per-capita income.

However it also has the highest rates of unemployment, teen pregnancies and crime plus the lowest national average IQ.

Either something's not working like it's supposed to or people are using the church as some sort of insurance policy to commit sins and then seek forgiveness - like a Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free card for members only.

On the other hand, maybe their lives are so miserable and pointless that they are hoping for something better afterwards.

Then again, combine those two options and maybe that's what it's all really about anyway.

Danielle

The reason creationism is on the rise is because scientifically and common sense wise it makes a lot more sense than the ever changing, ever wrong assumptions and dogmas made by evolutionist. Just happens that even the youngest of children know that where creation exists their must be a Creator. The alternative is fanciful and unscientific.

Rache

Have you ever heard that where sin abounds Gods grace abounds more. It is the sick who need a doctor. Maybe those who are well off are so self righteous that they can't see the need for forgiveness. Maybe they look down so much and judge the lower class as you seem to be doing.

What "rise of creationism"? The only developed country in the world where creationism still has any significant support is the U.S., and the percentage there that believe in naturalistic evolution has gradually risen from about 9% in 1991 to 13% in 2006.
Another more recent poll from 2007 showed that 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believed in naturalistic evolution.

In the rest of the developed world, creationism is purely a fringe phenomenon, with at least 80% of the population accepting naturalistic evolution, including 95% of religious leaders.

(from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

Runner and rache,

I know a couple who are fundamentalist Christians and are extremely well off. They frequently fly overseas to see family and friends. Or, it may be the fact that the wife never has her hair-cut, nor wears makeup that saves this sort of money :-) They never donate to charity as they believe that if God wanted these people better off (saved), he would have done so. From what I can see there are not going to be a lot of people in heaven - (and what few of them are there, will be deadly dull).

Their church, which is based in the US, looks after its worldwide membership financially very well. The extended family are all of the same religion. They were not extremely poor when they converted. Presumably, their church can afford the best PR and campaigns.

I sometimes wear a red scarf which immediately labelled me as satan's spawn. I also have my hair cut and on occasion wear makeup, and indeed, the worst sin of all - I wear pants, thus, destined to go to hell in a handbag. This is even after I have carefully explained that when someone attempts to ravish me in the dairy dept of Woolies - which is inevitable - I can fight them off without showing my nickers. (Indeed, at my age, I would consider it a plus if I could raise any feelings of lust in the opposite sex).

This family are staunch creationists. They do not deny that scientists find fossils apparently millions of years old. These fossils, they will tell you, are planted by God to test their faith. Their children are professionals, all university educated.

Runner,
I’m not looking down on the lower class, I’m just responding to an opinion with some facts.
If you prefer to counter facts with more opinion that’s fine, but the notion of man being created directly out of dirt being scientific and less fanciful than any other possibility is a bit of a stretch.

Maybe some religions are marketted more toward the poor and desperate and others target the rich and influential.

I don’t feel that the number of self-proclaimed religious people is increasing but the influence of religious fundamentalism certainly is, and it hasn’t been very pleasant.

Maybe that’s why there is such a hostile reaction against it, even from those who would be more tolerant under different circumstances.

Runner,
While I am not interested in entering a debate about religion I am very interested in exploring the rationale each side gives.

So could you tell me where to find the source for your claim about the "incredibly high" numbers of Christians in China? This is of great interest because, teaching in a Chinese University where the numbers of Christian students are miniscule, and living in a city of 7 million where there are only one Catholic and one inter-denominational church, I'd like to follow this up.

I was also interested to read about the outlawing and persecution such high numbers of people are undergoing? Exactly what form does this take? Is it likely, do you think, to affect my class attendance figures?

We are aware that Government propaganda - in all countries - often gives a misleading picture, but if the much-publicised policy on religious freedoms here has led to the persecution of Christians I would like to know as it would mean some of my students are at risk.

wizofaus

If you search "Creationism" + England, you will find that a number of very expensive educational bodies have been set up to teach it. In some schools, creationism (also "intelligent design") is being taught alongside evolution "let the students decide for themselves." This has also appeared on the continent.

The Vatican and High Church of England, both of whom support evolution, are concerned

abstract:

A recent Mori poll for the BBC found that only 48 per cent of the British population accept evolutionary theory; 39 per cent of people surveyed apparently preferred to put their faith in creationism or its cousin, Intelligent Design. Over 40 per cent believed that the controversial theories like ID should be taught in school science lessons
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060522creationism.shtml

If one accepts either creationism and/or intelligent design, we definitely have cause for complaint. "He" should have got it "right" first off!

Hi Romany

An organisation called open doors has been helping persecuted Christians in China and other countries for decades. They estimate between 60 to 80 million Christians in China. Of course those churches that are registered as with the Government often totally compromise Christs teachings in order to prevent any persecution. I personally know a number of people who have smuggled bibles into China. There are far more Christians in what is known as the underground church than those who belong to 'registered churches'. Exact numbers are obviously difficult obtain. Wikipedia also quotes some independent surveys with numbers ranging between 40 -130 million. Considering their were very few believers 100 years ago this is amazing growth even at its conservative estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China

If your students belonged to registered churches I doubt they would face any persecution. If they belong to any of the thousands of house churches not registered with the Government they would be in danger.
You can read one of the countless cases of persecution that was reported by the BBC below. I have met believers from China who have suffered torture and the loss of possessions for their faith in Christ.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

Danielle, yes, I'm aware that there are parts of the world where creationism has risen to prominence.

That BBC poll result seems highly dubious, given a 1991 poll showed that only 7% of Britons believed in a literal Biblical account of creation.

(http://christianparty.net/gallupcreationscientists.htm)

At any rate, I'm sure we can all agree that what matters the most is the number of people who have actually dedicated their lives to the scientific study of life and its origins and still conclude that evolution theory as we know it is fundamentally wrong. The moment that number starts to rise to anything significant, I will pay attention.

wizofaus,

"... what matters the most is the number of people who have actually dedicated their lives to the scientific study of life and its origins and still conclude that evolution theory as we know it is fundamentally wrong ...

Absolutely correct. Absolutely.

I should have born in mind that poll results also depend upon the way in which questions are posed. Rather like the only permitted response: (yes/no) ... to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

This method of questioning was the favoured way of interrogating those suspected of witch-craft during the Inquisition. If quotas of witches burnt at the stake were anything to go by, this style of questioning certainly brought in results ...

Danielle,

Casting doubt on one theory does not automatically prove another to be correct, especially one that is a just dressed-up and rebadged variation of a fundamentalist philosophical assumption.

rache,

You said:

"Maybe some religions are marketted more toward the poor and desperate and others target the rich and influential."

I agree with you.

Like you, I don't like fundamentalist philosophy, however, it is presented - whether as intelligent design or creationism - and I have absolutely no idea why either would appeal to anyone, whatever their circumstances. I can't even see what possible "comfort" such fundamentalism provides to those that adopt these beliefs.

If you are alluding to the fact that I mentioned the Vatican and the High Church of England, this in no way indicates that I believe in Christian theology. I was simply stating that these two major Christian demoninations also support evolution.

Good stuff. The original topic is another baseless shot at the church.....or religion more like it.

If a judge makes a decision BASED on the opinion of a church then the judge is at fault, not the church.

No. 1: What's the different between having people of faith on jury duty and people OPPOSED to faith?. Same thing, just at opposite ends of the scale. There's a thing called a dictionary, read it.

No. 2: What a ridiculous idea. Is this an official statement from People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming policy?. How many of your members agree with your ideas about politics and religion...seeing as you're speaking for all of them.....apparently. You pull that card out of the pack when you have too.

Hello everyone
Just a quick visit to the site while away. While I cant read all comments through I can see there are many interesting ones.
Upon return will give more detailed replies to posters.

Just wanted to addd that there was no mental grounds and the woman was or is forty two.

It was accepted by the court it was done as joke= full stop end of story.

Thats was the plea and the court acccepted it.

The goat belonged to a twelve year old child and the family were too upset to speak to anybody.

David, good to see yoy onside with this one.

Well back soon and will repond in more detail then
Cheers al

The whole proposal is absolute bigoted nonsence. You do not find the Church putting foward such a small minded bigoted proposition - to only have members of the Church as Judges and serve on Dury duty. It indicates the level of hostility some atheists here have toward people of faith. With these types of attitudes society should be extremely concerned because these types of obsessive unbalanced people if in power would administer injustice and bigotry.

The whole facts of the original case has not been put to this OLO dury panel yet conclusions have been made that injustice has been done. When the Judge who served on the Case and evaluated all the evidence aquitted the accused. There was no mention of what was the religious affiliation of the Judge, or members of any dury.

If you have read most of the posts of "People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming", the original proposal demonstrates his / her obsessive attitudes. As I have previously said, I find the accused to have performed irresponsibly, and in poor taste. If the goat was actually the property of the child then adequate remuneration should have been made to reconcile herself to the child.

However I do not believe PALEIF was encouraging reconciliation between the two parties he was rather screaming for punishment like imprisonment.

You don’t give-up do you, Philo?

<<The whole proposal is absolute bigoted nonsence.>>

I’d agree.

<< You do not find the Church putting foward such a small minded bigoted proposition - to only have members of the Church as Judges and serve on Dury duty.>>

Wanna bet?!

History is full of this kind of small-minded bigotry from the Church, and from religious leaders and individuals - even in modern times. Take George Bush Sr. as just one of many millions of examples:

”No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”

Later on, Bush Sr. was given the chance to retract this comment, and he didn’t. Instead, one of his staffers replied with this:

”As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government.”

Your comment here, Philo, is very revealing in the sense that it shows that you’re able to block-out about 95% of everything that has happened throughout history, and everything that is still happening.

<<It indicates the level of hostility some atheists here have toward people of faith.>>

Yes, the keyword being: “some”.

Atheists are individual thinkers, so your bound to find a bigoted one from time-to-time.

The Church on the other hand, has a lot of bigotry engrained into it. I could list hundreds of examples, just give me the go-ahead…

<<With these types of attitudes society should be extremely concerned because these types of obsessive unbalanced people if in power would administer injustice and bigotry.>>

You can’t be serious! As opposed to the Church?! HA!

I refer back to everything I have said above.

AJ Philips,
Please identify for me what Government or Party policy writer in Australia has proposed that we do not engage atheists or only engage Christians as Judges or on Dury duty?

Wisofaus
I hope I have spelled that correctly. Yes it did work well overseas. I regret I have been absent and look forwarding to going into that side of the debate upon my return.
For now thanks for your comment. Demos Also.
Rache- Silly comment- but perhaps if religion was floowed in law you have a point. She should have been!

David Atheist foundation of Australia
Thank you for your comment. In hindsite perhaps I should hyave waited to post this thread as it is inmportant to not only myself but our members.
It is without a doubt one of the most difficult tasks we face when trying to acheive any sort of justice in such cases.
Mandy the goat case is only one of many.
I have both spoken in person and recived a letter in way of formal reply from the Minister of that Church involved.
I have tried to appeal- or get someone to appeal the matter but I suggest we may be running out of time also.

I will post the letter from the parrticular Church leader where the goat was buthered to death.
But still= Surley the Church could have and should have appealed this themselves without being chased.
No to go to court with the defence the chirch forgave is insulting.
For the court to give any consession because of it is criminal.

Its time courts woke up and we need to highlight the adverse effect
religion has in our legal system.

Philo,

<<Please identify for me what Government or Party policy writer in Australia has proposed that we do not engage atheists or only engage Christians as Judges or on Dury duty?>>

There probably aren't any examples of that. But that's irrelevant.

This one suggestion from one particular individual, is pretty insignificant if you’re attempting to paint an entire group of people as 'bigoted' - which is exactly what you were doing here:

<<With these types of attitudes society should be extremely concerned because these types of obsessive unbalanced people if in power would administer injustice and bigotry.>>

I could generalise the entire Church with far more examples of bigotry if you’d like? All kinds of bigotry, from entire organisations - not just one person.

We could start with the fact the Christian Right in the US has so much influence and power, that it makes it impossible for anyone to be elected President if they admit they're an Atheist.

Nice try, Philo. You though you had me there didn’t you?

BOAZ_David

Ah Little buddy Boaz.

I tell you what I do like about you Boaz unlike Philo.

That is you have been the only so called good Christian to stand up and say = Well ah yes something is wrong with this or that and it needs fixing.

You also have the courage of your convictions by not being scared to stand up on a soap box [ quite litterally] at times and have a say.

You also do listen `at times`.

I tend to pick on your hero David[ Steve Feilding] not because I want to upset you but because I honestly can not see what you see in him.

Dont you think its even possible that you just sort of follow these guys like Fielding because you consider its the loyal thing to do- One Chistian to another type thing?

Trust me when I say= I have met him in person and tried to get a reply in writing for FOUR Years!.

He just isnt! as you imagine David and I suspect your a hell of a lot more sincere than he is.

I would bet on it.

However David after saying that I agree with Morgan in so far as we need people who can THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

Which is why we need the law free from any Church influence or religion.

A court of law should have no higher powers or influence hanging over its head.

Philo unlike David you are not a good christian in my view. For Example.
I recall you having the nerve to call Muslims cruel and blame them for live animal exports.

When I pointed out to you that it was the cruel Australian Christians that were even more reasonsible by sending them you denied denied denied.

No Morgans got a point David just you look at the Philo types lerking around all the womens business threads.

Stone the crows how would you like to be a rape victim who had a termination and had someone like that on the jury.

Pretty scarey stuff David you must agree.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,
For your information I have served on several Duries. One a rape case as a member of the Jury. The Jury unanomously aquitted the accused as the supposed rape was a cover for a pregnancy from a casual affair with a friend in the accused delivery van while the husband was away for three months. She actually got into the van deliberatly to have sex with the accused. Her claim was to ward of the anger of her husband. So in this accusation she lost the trust of the two men in her life

I have said it before and I will say it again= Your a sick sad sorry case.
Even if your story were true[ Which I do not for one moment accept]] you would 'not be' a gentleman to discuss the case.



You have just enforced my above comments.

I bet the guy got off with `you` there. Of course the accused would say the victim got into the van of her own free will you idiot.

How in the hell would "you know" what really happend.!

This is a perfect example of what I mean by having relgious nuts anywhere near courts.
Yes its always the womens fault isnt it.

Your strange attitude towards women are a matter of record all over this forum.
That includes your stupid alligations of murder simply because a woman excersises the right to choose to have or not have children.

Just as well we dont have courts sitting on that on a daily basis.

No relgious fruit cakes involved with courts at all is what is required.

Oh BTW this was about the goat that was slaughtered

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,
Here again we have you making accusations without evidence, and bigoted conclusions based on your prejudice. You do not deserve a response. Obviously I hit on a raw nerve previously too close to the truth so you make wild ascertions.

The World ought to know who you are because you are a real danger to a cizilised democratic society.

philo

We have read many of your posts.

You should know its our pet hate the "good Christians"
preaching that abortion is murder while turning their back on millions of Gods creatures.
As they say-= If the cap fits.



You blame the Muslims for the cruelty of the live export trade when it is the Chistians who send them to ME.

You do not feel that the Church has any place towards setting a example to their members to follow taking reasonsibilty towards Gods Creatures.

How Typical. You rubbish good people who are trying to do what is clearly the churches job to improve Animal Welfare.

I should add not all Christians are like that just plenty.



As far as who I am=

http://www.halakindmeats.com/

There you go .