is this true? atheists are more intelligent than religious people

[Fadi]

“Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” — Noam Chomsky

“Our greatest enemy today is not a particular group of people in a far-off country. Our greatest enemy is war itself.” — Paul Chappell, author of The Art of Waging Peace.

“The myth that war creates justice, solves problems, improves security and enables peace is absurd. If we weren’t so bombarded with propaganda to the contrary, everyone would know that. We need to insist on a new story, the true story. We must forbid the few to profit from war so that we may all begin to profit from peace.” —Robert Shetterly.

“Every modern war has had its root in exploitation. The Civil War was fought to decide whether the slaveholders of the South or the capitalists of the North should exploit the West. The Spanish-American War decided that the United States should exploit Cuba.” —Larry Egly, Veterans For Peace Chapter 961 Codirector.

“War is the worst thing that human beings can do to each other, and the worst form of exploitation by the rich and the powerful.” —Nicolas J Sandy Davies.

“War is the worst act of terrorism and among the greatest causes of human suffering and death and ecological degradation. Wars are declared by the rich and fought by the poor. There will be no real justice and protection of human rights and the rights of nature until a sustainable global peace has been achieved.” —Brian J. Trautman.

 

[spartacus]

fadi, fair enough, but war will always exist as long as we continue our struggle over resources and the influence of certain ideas. There are simply too many rival ideologies out there that want to promote their own self-interest. this is likely to remain true for a very long time.

the key for me is to hope the right side wins.

as you know, I am diehard supporter of the west; I do not apologise for that. sure the west makes mistakes, always has, but I fear any other hegemony will leave the world far worse off.

 

[Goosey]

I don't think Pell is too intelligent

But very crafty, these bastards need to be

 

[Darkoz]

They are crafty indeed, the most sensitive part of a priests body are their ears

 

[spartacus]

the other famous father was at my house and spilt wine on my carpet, bastard.

 

[Fadi]

I'm not an atheist but a Muslim, where I'm clearly instructed by Islam to abide by the law of the land in which I reside. With that said, the law of the land here in Oz tells me the following:

The presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I more than agree with such a stance as written above. So why the hypocrisy in democracy here? Why put out your dirty linen for the whole world to see, and in the process, accusing someone in public where the legal process (of which this democracy claims to be), is virtually thrown out the window for the sake of making some news headline.

As I've stated (and as you all know), I am not a Christian, let alone being a Catholic as cardinal Pell is. So I am not here to defend the man but the constitution of which I live under, as I detest hypocrisy beyond any measure. So if I'm attacking anyone, I am attacking our media and all who support it under such circumstances.

Turning the page, we see the following...

Can we (the law of the land), take measures of derogation from certain obligations, one of which includes the right to the presumption of innocence? The answer to that question is yes, the law does allow for such a "loophole" if I may call it that. Well, under what circumstances then would (or could) this act or measure of derogation take place you may be wondering?

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed. Such measures may only be taken to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

I draw from the above, that there has to be some sort of public emergency which threatens the nation...if we are to enact this measure of derogation to the presumption of innocence.

Now that you've been made aware of the above, would you continue with your finger pointing; would you continue giving your support to ones who are (carelessly) doing the finger pointing on your behalf, or would you take a step back and reconsider your stance and obligations towards the fundamental principle of the common law, a law that encompasses the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

If I come across as one who is just a tad bit too serious for your liking, then I make no apology for my attitude, as I for one, respect the law of this land and would not stand for anyone making a mockery of it if I can help it.

Over to you gentlemen...

 

[Darkoz]

Fadi, I think you're confusing the process of the law with people's opinions and/or thoughts which the law cannot not and rightly so should not legislate against nor try to control.

 

[bull]

Fadi, I think I agree with you but your posts can be hard to follow at times.

The media would love to get Pell. He is right at the top of the tree in the whole church mess. There is nothing better than a big scalp.

The legal process won't be distorted but the coverage can be.

My opinion of Pell, even if he didn't abuse anyone, he had to know about it and he did nothing to stop it. I almost hope his God exists so that he gets his judgement when they meet.

Sent from my R7sf using Tapatalk

 

[Fadi]

Fadi, I think you're confusing the process of the law with people's opinions and/or thoughts which the law cannot not and rightly so should not legislate against nor try to control.

Thank you Darkoz.

What I am saying is how is it that people (as well as the media, which has its own blind followings more often than not), why are all these allowed to even know about an accusation before its determination one way or the other is made? This has nothing to do with law or democracy, at least the way I understand it, but mere accusation of people who (under our common law), are presumed innocent until proved otherwise.

Now had cardinal Pell posed a threat to our nation, as I've mentioned in my earlier post, then for sure, the whole scenario would take a different path. I am not saying hey, let's keep such and such a secret from public knowledge no. If the public has any business (under the terms of our laws) to have access to such information as a mere accusation, then this makes the whole deformation of character law worthless.

Furthermore, we live in a system where jury is part of that legal system, in my opinion making this whole episode that I'm discussing even more dangerous to contemplate. A judge judges based on the evidence before him, a jury (under the circus I'm referring to), would judge based on the biases they've accumulated through media reports, be they true or false. In other words, the jury would not be operating from a pure stance of neutrality, as this stance would have already been contaminated with all that has been said (as you've put it Darkoz), in the name of "people's opinion".

I'm not so much saying my way or the highway here Darkoz, however I am trying to understand and make a distinction of what is people's business (at a given point in time), and what is or should remain the court's business, until such a time the law deems it fit for the public to get involved with their opinion one way or the other.

As you know, once a word has been said, it can never be taken back..., and here lies the damage Darkoz.

 

[Fadi]

Fadi, I think I agree with you but your posts can be hard to follow at times.

My apologies mate, I'll aim for a clearer way of sharing my thoughts next time. Thanks for the constructive criticism, I appreciate it.

The media would love to get Pell. He is right at the top of the tree in the whole church mess. There is nothing better than a big scalp.

Precisely why the media should never have gotten wind of the story, as it's none of its business. We seem to forget at time (or more often than not), that it is people's lives we're dealing with here and not simply some inanimate or abstract object devoid of any human emotions. Jesus's golden rule fits so perfectly here:

The legal process won't be distorted but the coverage can be.

As long as you're dealing with human beings, you're dealing with imperfections. So why make the matter worse? In other words, why plant the seed of "guilt" before proven innocent in the mind of a possible future jury? Prevention is always better than cure. So by doing no more than presenting the evidence to a (now) more potentially impartial jury, the accused would have a much fairer trial than if the media circus with different peoples' opinion on the matter, were aired across the media air waves beforehand.

Yes I am trying my damn hardest to protect the accuse in this instance, not because I consider him innocent, or because I know something others do not no. I am simply saying what I am saying because our law allows me to say it, and you (should you be the one who have been accused "bull"), would expect nothing less of me as a member of society.

Thank you for reading my thoughts Sir, I hope I articulated them in a clearer manner this time round.

 

[spartacus]

I'm not an atheist but a Muslim, where I'm clearly instructed by Islam to abide by the law of the land in which I reside. With that said, the law of the land here in Oz tells me the following:

The presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I more than agree with such a stance as written above. So why the hypocrisy in democracy here? Why put out your dirty linen for the whole world to see, and in the process, accusing someone in public where the legal process (of which this democracy claims to be), is virtually thrown out the window for the sake of making some news headline.

As I've stated (and as you all know), I am not a Christian, let alone being a Catholic as cardinal Pell is. So I am not here to defend the man but the constitution of which I live under, as I detest hypocrisy beyond any measure. So if I'm attacking anyone, I am attacking our media and all who support it under such circumstances.

Turning the page, we see the following...

Can we (the law of the land), take measures of derogation from certain obligations, one of which includes the right to the presumption of innocence? The answer to that question is yes, the law does allow for such a "loophole" if I may call it that. Well, under what circumstances then would (or could) this act or measure of derogation take place you may be wondering?

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed. Such measures may only be taken to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

I draw from the above, that there has to be some sort of public emergency which threatens the nation...if we are to enact this measure of derogation to the presumption of innocence.

Now that you've been made aware of the above, would you continue with your finger pointing; would you continue giving your support to ones who are (carelessly) doing the finger pointing on your behalf, or would you take a step back and reconsider your stance and obligations towards the fundamental principle of the common law, a law that encompasses the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

If I come across as one who is just a tad bit too serious for your liking, then I make no apology for my attitude, as I for one, respect the law of this land and would not stand for anyone making a mockery of it if I can help it.

Over to you gentlemen...

what are you on about

 

[Fadi]

what are you on about

Don't try to understand, it would be best I say