Pastor had sex with daughters
-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pastor-had-sex-with-daughters/2007/08/30/1188067266454.html
"Judge Lovell gave full credit for the man's guilty pleas, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a good chance of rehabilitation as his wife and the church remained supportive."
Is this undue respect for religion? The man got 8 years and will be eligible for parole in 4. -
yucks.
just because he's a pastor i think he should be given more years. -
-
-
It's the Western world; you'd expect greater leniency than you see in Oriental societies.Originally posted by Phaze:Is this undue respect for religion? The man got 8 years and will be eligible for parole in 4.
Undue respect for religion? Don't be so quick to heap stuff on that side. 4 years is a long time, yes maybe not long enough, but if it were "undue respect", you'd see churches protesting the sentence. The article doesn't make any mention of that, which I'm sure the media would include if such a protest did happen. -
Pastor, priest, prata, pasta - they are all human and things. What so special? The problem with us is: got eyes cannot see, just like the story of emperor with no clothe.
-
Okay. What I was really asking is if this person did not have a religious background, would he have gotten a harsher sentence? What is the average sentencing period for non-christians for the same crime?Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:It's the Western world; you'd expect greater leniency than you see in Oriental societies.
Undue respect for religion? Don't be so quick to heap stuff on that side. 4 years is a long time, yes maybe not long enough, but if it were "undue respect", you'd see churches protesting the sentence. The article doesn't make any mention of that, which I'm sure the media would include if such a protest did happen.
You could perhaps argue that the judge did not so much take religion into account (though that's what he said) but was actually factoring in community support and the support of his family. That's all well and good. Except that how much of that support is perhaps due to Christian influence? Perhaps the wife feels that the husband is the head of the household and can do no wrong. Perhaps the community believes that their religion can actually make a difference to this man (an unwarranted belief).
I accept that all this is just speculation. Most likely, I think his church community just believes that he deserves a second chance. But why? Other people get punished all the time for the mistakes they make. Why must religion factor in? -
You got to understand this: a lot of things, even justice, .... can get skewed and screwed up by religion.Originally posted by Phaze:....... to this man (an unwarranted belief).
I accept that all this is just speculation. Most likely, I think his church community just believes that he deserves a second chance. But why? Other people get punished all the time for the mistakes they make. Why must religion factor in?
In ancient times, religion played an important part of daily life. It still is today but not daily - except for the fanatics! Most likely weekly, one in a blue moon or red moon, or when somebody died! -
Well, wouldn't we all like a second chance? If an atheist comes up to me and insults my faith, I wouldn't be so quick to shoot anything back at him. I'd give him a second chance, because there might be other reasons that might factor into his rudeness and intolerance. Things like Law and Psychology just don't work very well when viewed ONLY from an objective point of view. Perhaps you're right about religion factoring in. However, I seriously doubt the significance of it; to claim it is the one determining factor would be falling into the trap of the Straw Man fallacy.Originally posted by Phaze:Okay. What I was really asking is if this person did not have a religious background, would he have gotten a harsher sentence? What is the average sentencing period for non-christians for the same crime?
You could perhaps argue that the judge did not so much take religion into account (though that's what he said) but was actually factoring in community support and the support of his family. That's all well and good. Except that how much of that support is perhaps due to Christian influence? Perhaps the wife feels that the husband is the head of the household and can do no wrong. Perhaps the community believes that their religion can actually make a difference to this man (an unwarranted belief).
I accept that all this is just speculation. Most likely, I think his church community just believes that he deserves a second chance. But why? Other people get punished all the time for the mistakes they make. Why must religion factor in? -
Yes but of course I'm not saying it's just one man. I'm use these as individual examples to what I believe is a systematic problem. The problem being unwarranted respect or consideration for religion.
To list all the examples is simply not possible as it is so pervasive. The unwarranted respect is the belief that religious people are somehow more moral than the non-religious. The unwarranted respect is the support and funding given to faith based initiatives. The unwarranted respect is giving tax exempt status to religious organizations.
With regards to the straw man argument, let's review the definition from Wikipedia:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
First of all, it's not my fault that people of widely differing beliefs all call themselves Christians. In that respect, there's no such thing as 'true' Christianity, or one core set of beliefs beyond the belief that Jesus Christ is divine and died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. Now just because the interpretation that I attack is not your interpretation does not by any means make it a straw man attack because I am not misrepresenting the position of those I am attacking.
In fact, let's say if we were to accept there is a true Christianity, it would probably be Catholicism or the Evangelicals. They have the historical backing or the numbers to support them. -
The are no true religions today. They have all been corrupted by one sweeping statement: "all humans are depraved".Originally posted by Phaze:In fact, let's say if we were to accept there is a true Christianity, it would probably be Catholicism or the Evangelicals. They have the historical backing or the numbers to support them. -
How true, even the non-deistics religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism have lost their true values.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:The are no true religions today. They have all been corrupted by one sweeping statement: "all humans are depraved". -
how is prata a human?Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Pastor, priest, prata, pasta - they are all human and things. What so special? The problem with us is: got eyes cannot see, just like the story of emperor with no clothe.