Throw that bone to a dog. If one thing differentiates anglosaxon law from codified law is that there's no need of a statute to action when a criminal act is involved.
Interesting assertion. Go ahead and back it up.
There's no such thing as the state depriving citizens of their rights and the officials involved not being prosecuted (unless you live in Venezuela or Russia). You may argue a lot about an effective penalization that might get, but that's not excuse for no taking action nor to consider actions not taken to be business as usual.
All very interesting (to someone, I suppose) but not particularly germane to the particular incident under discussion, since action quite obviously was taken in that case. And quite quickly too, compared to the way those things ususually go.
Indeed, this is more telling. You, quadraginta, seem to be a very good merchant, and as any merchant you are skilful twisting things, hiding defects and exaggerating virtues, to finally enjoy when the product is sold, like a hunter that caught game. You enjoy so much the process of selling that you will continue to reply with nonsensical bits.
Can't help yourself, can you. Unable to provide a rational response you resort to insult.
However, this bit about the Davis freak makes difficult to avoid noticing that you seem to find more offence in people believing than in people actually harming non-believers in the real society.
What a remarkably strange claim to make. Are you suggesting that because I find fault with the harm done by believers to society in general and not specifically and solely that which is done to non-believers that somehow I am less offended by the latter.
My concern is with the harm done to
anyone. Even that by believers which is done to other believers. Or by non-believers to believers (although their definition of "harm" and my own frequently diverge.)
I have no reason to single out specific groups for any reason at all.
Whatever gave you such a peculiar idea?
What is exactly my point. Anti-theists are a large group with many different manifestations
Is this your attempt at an excuse for painting everyone who doesn't agree with you in every regard with the same tired brush?
I do not initiate conversations concerning religious faith or spirituality with anyone. I haven't since I was a pre-teen, since it was obvious to me even then that such conversations were either echo chambers or solution free.
I could not care less if someone chooses to worship Jehovah, Mohamed, Krishna, TFSM, Santa Claus, Jack Frost, or their pet gerbil.
I don't challenge anyone on their beliefs, and I don't bother trying to 'talk them out of it'. I just don't bring the subject up
I wish I could say the same for all of them. The persistence and intensity of
their efforts is the only factor which would affect my own. I am, quite simply, bored by the subject.
However, when organizations (not infrequently churches or the representatives of religions) try to make their own particular beliefs into obligations for society in general then I speak out. Why should I not?
That's the question you need to answer. It can only be called "anti-theist" by a zealot, because I don't give a damn about their theology. All I care about is overt efforts to mandate the strictures of their theology on people who disagree with them.
and a common impairing defect.
Go ahead. Tell us all what that is.
See if you can manage to be specific.
For a change.
