Texas judge interrupts jury, says God told him defendant is not guilty

[Baruch]

All throughout history, when rational thought meets superstitious thought, rational thought wins.  I have yet to see an example where facts show superstitious thoughts to be correct.  And theistic thoughts are all superstition.

All human culture, is invention.  It isn't usually driven by logic.  And the empiricism is iffy, because culture creates artifacts which justify the culture.  Certainly this judge, isn't a mere theist, but is deranged (like George W).  In particular ... politics is irrational, it is based on group dynamics and leaders who are able to catalyze these dynamics.  Nothing Vulcan about that.

[Cavebear]

All human culture, is invention.  It isn't usually driven by logic.  And the empiricism is iffy, because culture creates artifacts which justify the culture.  Certainly this judge, isn't a mere theist, but is deranged (like George W).  In particular ... politics is irrational, it is based on group dynamics and leaders who are able to catalyze these dynamics.  Nothing Vulcan about that.

Just a complete side observation...  Do you own stock in a comma company?  And you might want to try a semi-colon once in a while; those help comprehension.

[Simon Moon]

Yes, human actions have consequences ... atheist or theist.  Is that you, Joe Stalin?

The question isn't are humans frustrating to live or work with ... they are.

The question is what are you going to do about it ... in humility.  And it is really hard to love everybody, particularly the less lovable.

But yes, I hope we can build a transporter machine, so that people uncomfortable with X, can go off to their own planet, like Elon Musk wants to do with Mars and billionaires.  But then, we could never learn to get along either.

Our anti-social tendencies are a stick in the eye.

Here's the problem you may be missing.

Atheism has no doctrine, dogma or holy books that could lead an atheists to take a negative action. Theistic religions do.

There are specific passages in just about every holy book, that can be interpreted to lead directly to negative consequences. There is no line that can be drawn between disbelieving in gods, to bad actions.

Your reference to Stalin (or any other totalitarian leader who was an atheist) as an example of atheism leading to negative consequences, is specious at best. Stalin's negative actions were not motivated by his atheism, they were motivated by bad dogma. As a totalitarian Communist dictator, he replaced the bad dogma of an absolute religious authority, with the bad dogma of an absolute State authority. Bad dogma leads to bad consequences.

[Cavebear]

Here's the problem you may be missing.

Atheism has no doctrine, dogma or holy books that could lead an atheists to take a negative action. Theistic religions do.

There are specific passages in just about every holy book, that can be interpreted to lead directly to negative consequences. There is no line that can be drawn between disbelieving in gods, to bad actions.

Your reference to Stalin (or any other totalitarian leader who was an atheist) as an example of atheism leading to negative consequences, is specious at best. Stalin's negative actions were not motivated by his atheism, they were motivated by bad dogma. As a totalitarian Communist dictator, he replaced the bad dogma of an absolute religious authority, with the bad dogma of an absolute State authority. Bad dogma leads to bad consequences.

You won't get much argument about that here.  Thank You...

[Baruch]

Here's the problem you may be missing.

Atheism has no doctrine, dogma or holy books that could lead an atheists to take a negative action. Theistic religions do.

There are specific passages in just about every holy book, that can be interpreted to lead directly to negative consequences. There is no line that can be drawn between disbelieving in gods, to bad actions.

Your reference to Stalin (or any other totalitarian leader who was an atheist) as an example of atheism leading to negative consequences, is specious at best. Stalin's negative actions were not motivated by his atheism, they were motivated by bad dogma. As a totalitarian Communist dictator, he replaced the bad dogma of an absolute religious authority, with the bad dogma of an absolute State authority. Bad dogma leads to bad consequences.

Everyone seeks political power ... got dictator?  Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist.

[fencerider]

Everyone seeks political power ... got dictator?  Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist.

That is why Mr Kimchi is the god of North Korea.


O.P. It didnt turn out so well for George Bush either when he said that he “hears the voices”. If the defense lawyer was on the ball, he should have made a motion for a mistrial. I wouldn’t want to have a judge that is half here and half somewhere else deciding my future.

[Blackleaf]

That is why Mr Kimchi is the god of North Korea.


O.P. It didnt turn out so well for George Bush either when he said that he “hears the voices”. If the defense lawyer was on the ball, he should have made a motion for a mistrial. I wouldn’t want to have a judge that is half here and half somewhere else deciding my future.

The defendant did call for a mistrial, but it was denied.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I swear I didn't tell him that.

[Cavebear]

Everyone seeks political power ... got dictator?  Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist.

I don't, and never have, sought political power.  Therefore, your statement is false.

Regarding "Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist", I am none of the above.  Religion is merely superstition, The "State" is merely a cooperative agreement of the citizenry, and I am not an anarchist.  More unsupported false claims you enjoy making.

[Baruch]

I don't, and never have, sought political power.  Therefore, your statement is false.

Regarding "Without religion, the State is god ... unless you are also an anarchist", I am none of the above.  Religion is merely superstition, The "State" is merely a cooperative agreement of the citizenry, and I am not an anarchist.  More unsupported false claims you enjoy making.

The greatest power is love.  Got Beatles?  And yes, it is clear you aren't an anarchist, just a little wild in your youth.  And the State doesn't have my agreement, they don't need it, they have political power.

[Cavebear]

The greatest power is love.  Got Beatles?  And yes, it is clear you aren't an anarchist, just a little wild in your youth.  And the State doesn't have my agreement, they don't need it, they have political power.

You suggest a State has power over you.  Which State has power over you? 

[Baruch]

You suggest a State has power over you.  Which State has power over you?

I am not Robert E Lee.  I am Mr Lincoln's bitch.  But absolute power corrupts absolutely, if as a polysci major, you don't understand that ...

[Cavebear]

I am not Robert E Lee.  I am Mr Lincoln's bitch.  But absolute power corrupts absolutely, if as a polysci major, you don't understand that ...

Oh *I* do.  The question was "Did you?  The Confederacy was State Rights gone amok, and you were supporting State Rights.

[Baruch]

Oh *I* do.  The question was "Did you?  The Confederacy was State Rights gone amok, and you were supporting State Rights.

Really?  So where have I said that ... the States can nullify Federal law?  Very tricky that.  Particularly if the details are not enumerated in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause has not been revoked, but is often ignored.  Facts on the ground and court decisions have refined what that all means.

If the Confederacy had left legally and peacefully, then it would have been no problem, except ideologically.  But it wasn't explicitly legal (and lawyers can claim implicit legality until they are blue in the face).  And it wasn't peaceful.  Mr Lincoln hoped and allowed that the Confederacy would give him a causus belli, and the fools did.  Ever listen to Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind?  Arrogance in his young fellows, but not in him.  People like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee may have had reason for arrogance, but not wisdom.

We replaced slavery to plantation with slavery to banks.  But slavery it remains.  And with the passing of the farm, we get slavery to employers.

So much is decided on a case by case basis .. will supporting or denying state's rights help my particular situation?  It certainly worked in favor of the Feds, for Brown vs Board of Education, eventually.  But if the case had been, the schools must indoctrinate with Marxism (what, we don't?) then most people would have eventually sited state's rights against it.  So it all depends, most people won't site something on an abstract basis, but on how the specific application seems to them.

So here we are with legalized weed vs the Feds, and sanctuary cities vs the Feds.  If you support state's rights, it all depends on how you fall on those issues ... not on some abstract constitutional law.

[Cavebear]

Really?  So where have I said that ... the States can nullify Federal law?  Very tricky that.  Particularly if the details are not enumerated in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause has not been revoked, but is often ignored.  Facts on the ground and court decisions have refined what that all means.

If the Confederacy had left legally and peacefully, then it would have been no problem, except ideologically.  But it wasn't explicitly legal (and lawyers can claim implicit legality until they are blue in the face).  And it wasn't peaceful.  Mr Lincoln hoped and allowed that the Confederacy would give him a causus belli, and the fools did.  Ever listen to Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind?  Arrogance in his young fellows, but not in him.  People like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee may have had reason for arrogance, but not wisdom.

We replaced slavery to plantation with slavery to banks.  But slavery it remains.  And with the passing of the farm, we get slavery to employers.

So much is decided on a case by case basis .. will supporting or denying state's rights help my particular situation?  It certainly worked in favor of the Feds, for Brown vs Board of Education, eventually.  But if the case had been, the schools must indoctrinate with Marxism (what, we don't?) then most people would have eventually sited state's rights against it.  So it all depends, most people won't site something on an abstract basis, but on how the specific application seems to them.

So here we are with legalized weed vs the Feds, and sanctuary cities vs the Feds.  If you support state's rights, it all depends on how you fall on those issues ... not on some abstract constitutional law.

The legality of any civil war depends on which side you are on.  I learned the arguments of both sides, and quite frankly, both sides had good arguments.  But the side that wins, wins...

Much as I like a unified US, I think the Confederacy had the better legal argument.