Fucking animals. This made me sick. From the beginning this could have gone in a direction to the extreme opposite. They could have shown this obviously mentally challenged man some compassion by humouring him and giving him some compassionate human interaction by listening to him and befriending him. Alternatively they could have simply shown him the door in a polite manner.

One thing I will never understand is how someone could do this to another. Just another reason why I find it impossible to believe in a compassionate God, right now I want the vengeful bastard from the Old Testament to come collect blood in retribution. People like this don't deserve to exist. There is no punishment for people like this, and if Hell does exist, it's still not enough.

>> ^Psychologic:
This kinda thing will happen in any country populated with people. The mistake many make is attributing such behavior specifically to police.
People are assholes. While that can't be completely prevented, it's nice to live in a country that allows for legal retribution.


yep.
as long as you have videotape,witnesses and a bank account that can fight this form of strong-arming.
what does one do if they dont have such luxuries?

This kinda thing will happen in any country populated with people. The mistake many make is attributing such behavior specifically to police.

People are assholes. While that can't be completely prevented, it's nice to live in a country that allows for legal retribution.

Incredibly emotive. If ever someone deserved some retribution...

i like pat condell's rants,
but lets be clear on what he is ranting against:fundamentalism.
i could not agree more.fundamentalism is a stagnation of the mind,a stripping of all imagination and intellectual curiosity and has led to the suffering and death of millions.we all should rebuke such abominable beliefs,they speak to the most base of emotions:fear.
hell is strictly a christian ideology,and it was john the baptist who bespoke of such fire and brimstone retribution,not jesus.
is it any wonder that many governments use fear politics to control the citizenry?the christian church made it apparent how well it actually worked..
and work it does.
to argue faith and belief is an exercise in futility,neither side can prove,or disprove the other.on the other hand,to argue scripture is fair game.it is written,and therefore can be studied,debated,argued..it is a tangible document.
and anybody with any curiosity and time to research will come to the same conclusion as pat condell.
it was written by man,designed to instill fear in order to control.yet at the same time it has some of the most insightful wisdom and beautiful poetry...a paradox.
fundamentalism is the bane of human society, and does not reflect the true nature of the creator.what is that nature?
well...im not gonna get all "preachy" on all of you,but here's a hint:
look outside...does that look "stagnant" or "static" to you?

Holy books? They looked like books to me. I quite doubt any supernatural retribution is going to occur because of this incident, but I could be wrong!

what's your strategy?
i already went to the store, re-bought everything, and gave him the reciept.
Mel's van is still sitting in the parking lot I pushed it into.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
do you know how to retaliate? If not, pm me, we'll discuss the perfect retribution.

do you know how to retaliate? If not, pm me, we'll discuss the perfect retribution.

Good stuff. This is fair retribution for the Brits refusing Wilders.

Sad thing when you've got a British politician with ties so close to radical and violent Islamists that it impedes his foreign travels. See this video for the direction the UK is taking: http://www.videosift.com/video/Labour-MP-Predicts-Total-Islamification-of-Britain

At least Wilders' "offense" falls under free speech. Galloway is just pandering to the Muslim vote with the most straightforward means possible. I would not be surprised to find his website in Arabic.

Scum of the earth.

Very bad.

Must take retribution in future.

^ First of all, I don't believe in collective rights, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't believe in any natural rights whatsoever. However, I do think there is something called justice. I think "true" justice is unobtainable as we lack the needed tools for it. You can't always punish people in the appropriate degree for the crimes they commit and certain situations are convoluted enough to lack any means of creating rules to manage them. Your over idealism clouds the practicality of carring out any "real" justice.

Furthermore, you go on and state there is no room for ambiguity yet don't clarify some universal idea of justice that apples to all peoples notion of it. Justice for some is retribution, for others, it is repayment, for others it is punishment and yet still others it is rehabilitation, and for most it is some hybrid of all of those. What you fail to point out in your objection to my claim of the officers side is how he violations instead of fulfills this "true and pure" for of justice that you seem to have an idea of that I don't.

Practically speaking, I would love to have seen this guy get moved by a score of police officers into the back of the car, but if you had to get scores of cops for every speeding ticket that went bad, you and I would get no police protection to speak of...they would just get mired down in the business of people tapping into the knowledge that they can just sit and cry out a ticket and hope the cop has to let him go because of a lack of man power at the present time.

In a perfect world of unlimited resources, maybe this COP would of had more options, but this isn't that world. He made a call, and the first tase I think was a good one. I think there is still room for argument that the subsequent tases were excessive.

As a rely to Wax as to the use of physical force. Physical force against someone should only be used to prevent physical violence, period. Whether it be against person or property. Sitting there crying wasn't hurting anyone.

Would this also include tackling a purse snatcher who can only be brought down by a good old fashion tackle? If so, then the only thing a criminal would need to do is be non-violent and fast to elude capture. Perhaps I am oversimplifying? Perhaps you could elaborate. Fact is, that force is the tool of police. It is that force that they yield that we call upon in our time of need. In most cases of domestic disturbances, people call the police even though they have legal authority to do very little...why? Because police represent the force. Police only exist because force is needed to keep the laws in order.

While it can be directly seen that he was a threat to no one including himself. He still didn't comply with the officers lawful order. Not knowing the details of the police department in question it races only the ideological question of if police are allowed to initiate aggressive force on a passively resistant force. This is highly controversial and up for debate within the justice department. I don't mind getting downmoded for this, it is controversial to say the least.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ufbponld.htm
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice

I don't think the idea of making criminals pay for the extra costs is a bad idea either, but that doesn't magically make more officers available to us when they are used in a way like suggested. The same would go in a hospital. If someone ruins a heart for a heart transplant, well they should still have to pay for it, but that someone who needed it is now either dead or has to wait for a new heart that doesn't come. That person is robbed of the heart who has committed no offense ( it isn't a perfect analogy here, but it is close).

That is my basic thought on the matter, should the person who calls the cops because his house has a crook in it have to wait longer because they are dealing with someone who resisted arrest(which is a forceful action of will instead of violence but force nonetheless). Someone is not going to get their fair share of justice...who will it be?

The idea that Jesus is fully human and fully God simultaneously is patently ridiculous on its face. That is simply doublespeak so that theists can try to win arguments such as this one. If he was fully God (even if he was also somehow fully human), he would not have feared the pain and death he knew was coming. I think that's all the proof anybody needs that Jesus was not divine. This is one of many cases where theists will twist words into unintelligible pretzels and come out of the argument claiming "faith" that their statements are true somehow trumps the logic that crushes their beliefs.

But let's set that aside for a second. Let's accept that Jesus feared pain and death, and that his crucifixion was as horrible to him as it would be to anyone else.

How exactly does that lift any burden off my shoulders? How can that absolve me of any portion of my guilt for sins against my fellow man? Of course, it's not supposed to be about my sins against my fellow man, but rather my sins against God.

(And the entire concept of a "sacrifice" is simply a throwback to a society that believed they had to "appease the gods". They pretended to assert some form of control over weather and natural disasters, which of course was pointless. That, of course, developed in the human world where a tribe would have to send a portion of their crop to the nearby dictator or risk being trampled by his army. And since their concept of God was simply an even more powerful dictator, they did the only thing they could think of that might make him happy: hurting themselves to show supplication.)

As I understand it, Christians claim that Jesus was the sacrifice that freed us from the burden of original sin. Even if that statement made sense, I refuse to accept responsibility for a mistake that was supposedly made by an ancestor thousands of years ago. I therefor reject any sacrifices (that I did not ask for) made on my behalf towards a debt that I do not recognize.

The bible is basically saying that God made man greedy, dangled money in front of his face (the Fruit of Knowledge), punished man for taking the money (expulsion from Eden), demanded regular payments (blood sacrifices before Jesus), sent his son to pay the debt with his own money (because Jesus is God), and commands us to be eternally grateful to Jesus for his sacrifice (which was not a sacrifice).

So even if every bit of Christian mythology is 100% correct, that would simply make us the unwilling slaves of a spiteful two-faced God, faced with the threat of eternal suffering, forced to put a smile on our face and sing praising songs, pretending to be grateful for the burdens and fear heaped upon us by our "loving" master.

I think it is pretty clear why I can't believe a word of it.


Theist: "Well Because of A we know that B happens."

Nontheist: "Sorry, try proving A before you derive anything from it."

By the way, thanks for letting me vent a bit. It's nice to get these swirling thoughts out of my head every once in a while. I hope they make sense to others as much as they do to me.

Peace.


In reply to this comment by smooman:
You have a different view of Jesus than I. The doctrine I hold to is that he was fully human and fully God. Not half-n-half or whatever. In that way, he experiences everything we do, from pain, to happiness, to mourning, to delight, to frustration (money changers in the temple for example). And because he was fully man, his suffering is twofold: the physical, the crucifixion, which most are familiar with even non theists, but then another, emotional, mental, and spiritual anguish and angst in the garden the eve of the crucifixion.

If dying on the cross is not that big of a deal, as you say, then why would Jesus cry out to God the Father "take this cup from me"? This is a man who knew what lay in store for him, and feared it, dreaded it, wanted a way out of it. It's important too that after he asks God to relieve him of this duty, that he wishes, "but Your will, not mine".

You say according to Christianity that Jesus wasn't a man but rather God in the form of man. This is where I would disagree. The mainstream doctrine on the divinity of Jesus in the Christian church is that he was fully man and fully God.

There are theologies that we're discussing that go much deeper than what we've covered so far. I think that this may become a long running discussion. But I do enjoy it and look forward to more. Sala'am =)

also what I meant by "theistic points of view" is this: (this will be cheesy so bare with me)

Theist: "Well Because of A we know that B happens"

Nontheist: "well I dont believe in A so B would never happen because A doesnt exist"


I know that's really silly and such a trivial analogy but it's the best I could come up with =(


In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
For any wrongdoings or mistakes I make in life, I expect to be punished for them during my lifetime. That may be in many different forms, such as the loss of a friend, the loss of respect from my community, the anger of someone seeking retribution, perhaps even a fine or punishment from the government that is set up by people who want to discourage such behavior. And I fully accept that because I am the only one who could have prevented the mistake or error in judgment.

If you made such an error in judgment, but the police caught somebody else by mistake, would you let that person take the punishment for you? Of course not, that would be completely immoral. Similarly, it would be completely immoral for anybody to be sent to hell for your sins. So exactly how is it acceptable for Jesus to suffer and die for your sins? Well, he was actually God, so he didn't really suffer, he didn't really die, he didn't go to hell. So he didn't really do anything for you anyway. Honestly, what sacrifice did Jesus make? If he was just a man, that would be the ultimate sacrifice. But according to Christianity, he wasn't just a man, so it wasn't really a sacrifice at all. Nothing was lost. Jesus came down, told people what he wanted to tell them, then went back to heaven. Ok, the method he used to go back to heaven was pretty brutal, but it wouldn't be that big a deal to someone who was actually an aspect of God himself.

So... Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything.

And... even if he did, I don't want anybody to be punished for something I did.

And... if God denies us entrance to heaven for making mistakes, the kind of mistakes that every human makes (because God made us that way), what kind of a bastard does that make God?

"Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash."

Sorry, but a person's point of view doesn't change a line of logical reasoning. Either these points can be refuted or they stand. Please remember that I was raised Christian and started formulating these thoughts well before I completely rejected the church.



>> ^smooman:
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. This is more along the lines of a theological debate but here goes. I personally, in my theological understanding, do not believe that simply being "good" will save you and the reason is this: Can you think of anyone, anyone you know, anyone you read about, anyone you ever met, anyone at all that has lived a blameless life? A life completely devoid of wrongdoing or a wicked thought or a anger fueled episode from the time of accountability to the time of separation (death)? Everyone does something "not good" in their life. They may regret it, it may be out of character, or they might not have meant it, but it happens. After all, we are only human.
Paul tells us that "all have sinned , and fallen short of the glory of God". I think thePinky had mentioned earlier that these sins or "mean things" or "slip ups" or whatEVER you want to call them cause us to be imperfect of our original creation and separate us from our Creator. Enter Jesus: the sacrificial lamb.
Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash. But there you have it.
I DO appreciate your openmindedness (I totally just made that word up hehe) and your sincere respect for other belief systems unlike MOST sifters =)
In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
It's tough to switch gears from arguments against fundamentalists to questions for moderates. But the last couple of days reminded me of my most important question for modern moderate Christians:
If there is a good person, who lives a good life, doesn't break any laws, contributes to his community and passes down a strong code of ethics to his children, would that person go to hell without Jesus?
As far as I can tell, that's what it says in the Bible, and that's one of the very first things that led me to reject Christianity. Most modern, compassionate Christians say you can still go to heaven just by being a good person. But that leads directly to the next question:
What is the point of Christianity if you don't really need to be a Christian to go to heaven?
I think you'll find that if you answer that question, none of your reasons will have anything to do with Jesus being an actual "Savior" or "Son of God".

You have a different view of Jesus than I. The doctrine I hold to is that he was fully human and fully God. Not half-n-half or whatever. In that way, he experiences everything we do, from pain, to happiness, to mourning, to delight, to frustration (money changers in the temple for example). And because he was fully man, his suffering is twofold: the physical, the crucifixion, which most are familiar with even non theists, but then another, emotional, mental, and spiritual anguish and angst in the garden the eve of the crucifixion.

If dying on the cross is not that big of a deal, as you say, then why would Jesus cry out to God the Father "take this cup from me"? This is a man who knew what lay in store for him, and feared it, dreaded it, wanted a way out of it. It's important too that after he asks God to relieve him of this duty, that he wishes, "but Your will, not mine".

You say according to Christianity that Jesus wasn't a man but rather God in the form of man. This is where I would disagree. The mainstream doctrine on the divinity of Jesus in the Christian church is that he was fully man and fully God.

There are theologies that we're discussing that go much deeper than what we've covered so far. I think that this may become a long running discussion. But I do enjoy it and look forward to more. Sala'am =)

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
For any wrongdoings or mistakes I make in life, I expect to be punished for them during my lifetime. That may be in many different forms, such as the loss of a friend, the loss of respect from my community, the anger of someone seeking retribution, perhaps even a fine or punishment from the government that is set up by people who want to discourage such behavior. And I fully accept that because I am the only one who could have prevented the mistake or error in judgment.

If you made such an error in judgment, but the police caught somebody else by mistake, would you let that person take the punishment for you? Of course not, that would be completely immoral. Similarly, it would be completely immoral for anybody to be sent to hell for your sins. So exactly how is it acceptable for Jesus to suffer and die for your sins? Well, he was actually God, so he didn't really suffer, he didn't really die, he didn't go to hell. So he didn't really do anything for you anyway. Honestly, what sacrifice did Jesus make? If he was just a man, that would be the ultimate sacrifice. But according to Christianity, he wasn't just a man, so it wasn't really a sacrifice at all. Nothing was lost. Jesus came down, told people what he wanted to tell them, then went back to heaven. Ok, the method he used to go back to heaven was pretty brutal, but it wouldn't be that big a deal to someone who was actually an aspect of God himself.

So... Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything.

And... even if he did, I don't want anybody to be punished for something I did.

And... if God denies us entrance to heaven for making mistakes, the kind of mistakes that every human makes (because God made us that way), what kind of a bastard does that make God?

"Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash."

Sorry, but a person's point of view doesn't change a line of logical reasoning. Either these points can be refuted or they stand. Please remember that I was raised Christian and started formulating these thoughts well before I completely rejected the church.



>> ^smooman:
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. This is more along the lines of a theological debate but here goes. I personally, in my theological understanding, do not believe that simply being "good" will save you and the reason is this: Can you think of anyone, anyone you know, anyone you read about, anyone you ever met, anyone at all that has lived a blameless life? A life completely devoid of wrongdoing or a wicked thought or a anger fueled episode from the time of accountability to the time of separation (death)? Everyone does something "not good" in their life. They may regret it, it may be out of character, or they might not have meant it, but it happens. After all, we are only human.
Paul tells us that "all have sinned , and fallen short of the glory of God". I think thePinky had mentioned earlier that these sins or "mean things" or "slip ups" or whatEVER you want to call them cause us to be imperfect of our original creation and separate us from our Creator. Enter Jesus: the sacrificial lamb.
Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash. But there you have it.
I DO appreciate your openmindedness (I totally just made that word up hehe) and your sincere respect for other belief systems unlike MOST sifters =)
In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
It's tough to switch gears from arguments against fundamentalists to questions for moderates. But the last couple of days reminded me of my most important question for modern moderate Christians:
If there is a good person, who lives a good life, doesn't break any laws, contributes to his community and passes down a strong code of ethics to his children, would that person go to hell without Jesus?
As far as I can tell, that's what it says in the Bible, and that's one of the very first things that led me to reject Christianity. Most modern, compassionate Christians say you can still go to heaven just by being a good person. But that leads directly to the next question:
What is the point of Christianity if you don't really need to be a Christian to go to heaven?
I think you'll find that if you answer that question, none of your reasons will have anything to do with Jesus being an actual "Savior" or "Son of God".

For any wrongdoings or mistakes I make in life, I expect to be punished for them during my lifetime. That may be in many different forms, such as the loss of a friend, the loss of respect from my community, the anger of someone seeking retribution, perhaps even a fine or punishment from the government that is set up by people who want to discourage such behavior. And I fully accept that because I am the only one who could have prevented the mistake or error in judgment.

If you made such an error in judgment, but the police caught somebody else by mistake, would you let that person take the punishment for you? Of course not, that would be completely immoral. Similarly, it would be completely immoral for anybody to be sent to hell for your sins. So exactly how is it acceptable for Jesus to suffer and die for your sins? Well, he was actually God, so he didn't really suffer, he didn't really die, he didn't go to hell. So he didn't really do anything for you anyway. Honestly, what sacrifice did Jesus make? If he was just a man, that would be the ultimate sacrifice. But according to Christianity, he wasn't just a man, so it wasn't really a sacrifice at all. Nothing was lost. Jesus came down, told people what he wanted to tell them, then went back to heaven. Ok, the method he used to go back to heaven was pretty brutal, but it wouldn't be that big a deal to someone who was actually an aspect of God himself.

So... Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything.

And... even if he did, I don't want anybody to be punished for something I did.

And... if God denies us entrance to heaven for making mistakes, the kind of mistakes that every human makes (because God made us that way), what kind of a bastard does that make God?

"Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash."

Sorry, but a person's point of view doesn't change a line of logical reasoning. Either these points can be refuted or they stand. Please remember that I was raised Christian and started formulating these thoughts well before I completely rejected the church.



>> ^smooman:
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. This is more along the lines of a theological debate but here goes. I personally, in my theological understanding, do not believe that simply being "good" will save you and the reason is this: Can you think of anyone, anyone you know, anyone you read about, anyone you ever met, anyone at all that has lived a blameless life? A life completely devoid of wrongdoing or a wicked thought or a anger fueled episode from the time of accountability to the time of separation (death)? Everyone does something "not good" in their life. They may regret it, it may be out of character, or they might not have meant it, but it happens. After all, we are only human.
Paul tells us that "all have sinned , and fallen short of the glory of God". I think thePinky had mentioned earlier that these sins or "mean things" or "slip ups" or whatEVER you want to call them cause us to be imperfect of our original creation and separate us from our Creator. Enter Jesus: the sacrificial lamb.
Again its all from a theistic point of view so for someone who doesnt share that point of view, all of this will be pretty much hogwash. But there you have it.
I DO appreciate your openmindedness (I totally just made that word up hehe) and your sincere respect for other belief systems unlike MOST sifters =)
In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
It's tough to switch gears from arguments against fundamentalists to questions for moderates. But the last couple of days reminded me of my most important question for modern moderate Christians:
If there is a good person, who lives a good life, doesn't break any laws, contributes to his community and passes down a strong code of ethics to his children, would that person go to hell without Jesus?
As far as I can tell, that's what it says in the Bible, and that's one of the very first things that led me to reject Christianity. Most modern, compassionate Christians say you can still go to heaven just by being a good person. But that leads directly to the next question:
What is the point of Christianity if you don't really need to be a Christian to go to heaven?
I think you'll find that if you answer that question, none of your reasons will have anything to do with Jesus being an actual "Savior" or "Son of God".

>> ^Psychologic:
I grew up around religion, so I guess I've seen more positives with it than what you see on TV. Kind, supportive people don't make the news.

Kind and supportive of their own clique does not make for decent human beings.

Decent people do not need faerie tale laws and threats of eternal retribution to be kind and supportive of others.


I think intolerance is one of the things you dislike, and that is not a religious principle. Hate the behavior, not the belief. Intolerance is a part of specific denominations, not all religions. I've seen plenty of intolerance from atheists as well.

Intolerance is only part of what I don't like. My primary fault with religion is ignorance. Anytime I see someone like the people in this video, spewing stupidity, I fill with unbridled rage. These people and their kind are idiots yet they choose the people that control how our society is run. They continue to grow in power, and each year they infect our communities with more and more ignorance and hate.


Because we're better than that.

You hang on to your principles, when you've lost the right to vote, work, own a home, marry, or raise children because you're not one of them, living in a 4'x8' cell enduring force "reeducation", I'm sure knowing that you're better than they are will be a great consolation.