Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
Oddly, I did indeed think about quoting Robespierre in this thread...

The little excursion into politics is not taking this too far, it is just an exploration of local customs that have no direct bearing on this case (but which helps to understand broader culture*).

Back to topic. There are a lot of angles from which to view this case. Yours is great: one needs to have an eye for the tradition, calmness and slow evolution that permeates local culture. What is regarded as a normal exchange of political views by one steeped in passionate, rushed debate, is considered bullying, a near invasion, by those who are steeped in tranquil conservatism, where both the pace of change is slower, and human interaction more entangled, such that an attempted overthrow of a quiet traditon by too strong a means is an attack on the social fabric. (* See, far from a pointless exersize in irrelevant local customs, reading up on the place helps to understand it)



Me, I see this case more as rural - urban than as strictly religious.
So this is the country bumpkins unable to understand the pace of the modern world? Or is that just a more genteel way of saying we're a bunch of ignorant, bigoted, corrupt, elitist stuck in the muds?

I'm sorry, but you comments regarding local government in England have been excessive, intemperate, inaccurate, and down right slanderous. If this is some attempt at an apolagy or justification of your previous statements it is severly lacking.

Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
Eh? So atheists judges would either be biased or ignorant in this case? I suggested a hypothetical unbiased observer of an equal case.
You can't have an unbiased observer, such a thing does not exist. A religious judge runs the risk of being too sympathetic to the Church, an atheist of not recognising the severity of the crime because of a lack of experience. Mitigation of either prejudice comes only with temperence, experience and reflection. In short, the quality of sentencing is dependent on the quality of the judge and his application of the Law, not on his theology.

That doesn't jibe with reality anyway. The most religious governments are the least just, and the most secular do just fine. Secular morality is more modern and religious morality is entangled with centuries-old traditions.
I dissagree, because most of the "religious" governments are Islamic, while most of the "secular" ones are post-Christian. Therefore, they are rooted in different traditions and not directly comparable. You would need to compare the judgements of a specifically Christian judge with a specifically atheist one in order to have any idea if the two differ substantively, and in what ways.