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?