The Hazards of Belief

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The fact that the complainant is even aware of the religion of the judge is a cause for concern in itself, how would they be unless he himself announced it? and if he announces his religion in open court, especially in a case involving children being obliged to attend services of that religion, it is a significant cause of concern. This judge should have excused himself from this case if he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing it.

The case has been to the court of appeal, twice. The judges there have full acces to the details of the case. Whilst I can't get the details of this one, I have read dozens upon dozens of court of appeal judgements. So whilst I, like you and everyone else, can't speak to the specifics of this case, I can say with reasonable confidence that the judges in the court of appeal are not shy about knocking the judges in the lower courts down a peg or two.

In general, the judiciary in the uk is exremly proud of its independence and it impartiality. They have a fairly good reputation, one which the higher courts guard very carefully.

I would go the opposite way to obplayer here. We don't have enough info here to make a judgement. As a result I will default to what I know of the court of appeal, and how they work in general, and say something is not right here and I genuinely beleive making a judgement on the information we have is a mistake.

I think, unfortunately, we are unlikely to get much more information on this. There have been a couple of family cases, where the legal principle is considered important and of the public interest, where the judge had released a comprehensive reazoning of the judgment, but that does not seem to have happened in this case. This in itself is not suspicious as this level of sharing is, in the family courts, a fairly new idea and still very, very rare. So unless the court decides to release more mformstion I fear we are stuck with inadequate knowledge to make any kind of meaningful judgement. Of course one is free to make up any kind of judgment one feels like, but when it goes against past form of the courts, the appeal court in particular which is pretty much based on past form, then I fear it falls more into the realm of conspiracy theory.

MrP

robindch

Nun gives birth to surprise baby after complaining of stomach pains

The nun belonged -- snigger, snigger - to the Missionary Sisters of the Love of Christ.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/nun-gives-birth-to-surprise-baby-after-complaining-of-stomach-pains-30934639.html

Indo wrote:

The nun, who came to Italy from South America, belonged to an order called the Missionary Sisters of the Love of Christ in Macerata, located in the Italian region of Le Marche. She says she had no idea she was pregnant.

She was taken to hospital by her sisters, where doctors quickly told her she was pregnant, according to Italian newspaper Il Corriere Adriatico. The baby is healthy and the nun’s convent has expressed an interest in taking care of him.

The nun arrived at the convent in June, when it is now believed she was already pregnant. According to the Italian newspaper L’Unione Sarda, the convent said the woman "is not a nun, is a girl that we are helping” possibly because she had not yet taken her vows.

The woman, who is reported to be from Bolivia, has now been discharged from hospital.

PopePalpatine

It must be very tempting for them to get a few thousand euros by selling that baby.

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It must be very tempting for them to get a few thousand euros by selling that baby.

Does that still go on today?

A miracle!

robindch

The Twelve Worst Religious Ideas

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/these-are-the-12-worst-ideas-religion-has-unleashed-on-the-world/

Raw Story wrote:

Bibliolatry, aka Book Worship
Blasphemy
Blood sacrifice
Chosen People
Eternal Life
Genital mutilation
Glorified suffering
Hell
Heretics
Holy War
Karma
Male Ownership of Female Fertility

The article expands a little.

robindch

The Timeline of the Universe:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-72-the-timeline-of-the-universe-9870d1b8f52

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

The Timeline of the Universe:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-72-the-timeline-of-the-universe-9870d1b8f52

rabble rabble
Mods constantly abusing their privileges.
rabble rabble
They think they can get away with posting anywhere!
rabble rabble
Feedback thread.
rabble rabble.
:mad:

Hotblack Desiato

Ms. Fornication caught making 2k worth of calls to Kenya at taxpayers' expense.

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ms. Fornication caught making 2k worth of calls to Kenya at taxpayers' expense.

Hmm. Clearly an outrageous slur against herself and Mr. Fornication. As they are born again Christians, we should all know that there's no impropriety there and reading the bible to each other over the phone is a worthy use of tax-payers money.

Bannasidhe

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Clearly an outrageous slur against herself and Mr. Fornication. As they are born again Christians, we should all know that there's no impropriety there and reading the bible to each other over the phone is a worthy use of tax-payers money.

Sure two grand wouldn't even get you past the begats when you are calling a mobile in Kenya :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The fact that the complainant is even aware of the religion of the judge is a cause for concern in itself, how would they be unless he himself announced it? and if he announces his religion in open court, especially in a case involving children being obliged to attend services of that religion, it is a significant cause of concern. This judge should have excused himself from this case if he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing it.

Of course he should. The thing is, we have no evidence at all that he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing the case. "He mentioned his Catholicism" =/= "he allowed his Catholicism to influence his judgment". Indeed, the author of the Skepticink piece treats the judge's Catholicism as a "conflict of interest" which ought to be declared, so if anything the fact that he was open about it would seem more proper than improper.

I come back to the fact that the judge will have stated reasons for his order, and the people who want us to take a particular view of the order are conspicuously not telling us what reasons he stated, or what comment was passed on those reasons on appeal, while throwing out snippets of information like "he mentioned his Catholicism!" in the hope that we will put 2 and 2 together to come up with 22.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course he should. The thing is, we have no evidence at all that he was unable to put his own religious beliefs to one side while hearing the case. "He mentioned his Catholicism" =/= "he allowed his Catholicism to influence his judgment". Indeed, the author of the Skepticink piece treats the judge's Catholicism as a "conflict of interest" which ought to be declared, so if anything the fact that he was open about it would seem more proper than improper.

I come back to the fact that the judge will have stated reasons for his order, and the people who want us to take a particular view of the order are conspicuously not telling us what reasons he stated, or what comment was passed on those reasons on appeal, while throwing out snippets of information like "he mentioned his Catholicism!" in the hope that we will put 2 and 2 together to come up with 22.

Ok, can we simply agree we will have to agree to differ on this until the unlikely event of more of the court transcripts becoming available?

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, can we simply agree we will have to agree to differ on this until the unlikely event of more of the court transcripts becoming available?

We don't have to agree to differ, ob; we can differ without any agreement to do so!

But, yeah, I note that you don't share my evidence-driven position on this, and neither does Hotblack. It doesn't bother me that you don't share it, and I don't resent it. You are still a splendid chap or chappess and I would be happy to buy you a pint should the occasion arise.

Turtwig

Besides aumann's theorem says you can't

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, yeah, I note that you don't share my evidence-driven position on this, and neither does Hotblack.

The evidence we have is by no means conclusive, but it is still a cause for concern. LOL at choosing to ignore what you don't like then calling yourself 'evidence-driven'.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The evidence we have is by no means conclusive, but it is still a cause for concern. LOL at choosing to ignore what you don't like then calling yourself 'evidence-driven'.

How am I ignoring what I don't like? In the very first line of my first substantive post on this subject I said that it may be true that the judge in this case is a twat, and that's still my position. It's just that the evidence we have been given so far doesn't establish this, and if anybody's ignoring what they don't like it's those who are so determined to reach that conclusion that they ignore the fairly glaring gaps in the evidence presented. For example it was left up to the skeptics to point out that the Telegraph report flatly contradicted the central claim of the Scepticink piece, which was that the father in this case was ordered to attend mass every week. (In fact he was ordered to arrange for his sons to attend mass at Christmas, if they were with him at Christmas.) So who exactly is "ignoring what they don't like"?

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Florida shows one tiny, tiny part of the RCC one possible route forward.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wife-grandma-catholic-priest-rebel-women-defy-church-ban-n286766

I am all for women priests but since the rules of the RC is that they can't be priests, I can't see how these women can continue to call themselves Roman Catholics if they don't play the game and follow the rules. They accept membership of the club on their terms.

The RC church has to change, and that change has to be forced by the majority, i.e. the laity. But through the proper channels. The faithful of the RCC have the right to and should reclaim their church for themselves.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

One would have thought so, but these good ladies think otherwise.

You might want to ask katydid that question as his/her area of interest, if not clarity, is the nature of christianity and its evidently perplexing membership rules.

Nothing perplexing about it. Different denominations have different rules. How hard is that to grasp?

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

They seem to get excommunicated as fast as they're ordained. Perhaps this it the break-away Catholic church of our dreams? Maybe we'll run out of priests so badly well here that the congregations will be forced to consider it! To be fair to Katy, if Christianity is what you make of it, and there are congregations now breaking off from Rome to the extent that they'll choose a woman priest themselves, religion could become a whole new thing rather quickly.

I'd love to hear katydid's take on that alright.

As long as Christianity has existed, there have been breakaway groups. Even though it would deny it, the RCC itself is a breakaway group, the product of a power struggle between east and west. The Anglican church is a breakaway group from the RCC, the Methodists from the Anglicans, and so (ad infinitum?)

It would be interesting to see a latter day breakaway movement from the RCC, but there doesn't seem to be a focused and organised campaign for such a movement. Simply individual initiatives in various parts of the world.

In Ireland, people who are dissatisfied with the RCC but who don't want to abandon the entire thing tend to gravitate to the Church of Ireland, which offers them the things they would have a problem with in terms of the RCC (celibacy and gender of clergy, lack of democracy in the church). I've never seen any drive towards an alternative "Catholic church" here; I suppose because this option more or less exists already

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Nun gives birth to surprise baby after complaining of stomach pains

The nun belonged -- snigger, snigger - to the Missionary Sisters of the Love of Christ.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/nun-gives-birth-to-surprise-baby-after-complaining-of-stomach-pains-30934639.html

The nuns say she's not a nun, but a "girl they were helping".

I don't think this story is as straightforward as it appears.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

The nuns say she's not a nun, but a "girl they were helping".

I don't think this story is as straightforward as it appears.

I remember hearing a story about another pregnant nun a few years ago, where the woman in question kept claiming that she was still a virgin, but her sisters kept rubbishing the claim...and there I was laughing, because the religion doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to dismissing claims of virgin births!

robindch

katydid wrote: »

The nuns say she's not a nun, but a "girl they were helping". I don't think this story is as straightforward as it appears.

The story says the nuns don't refer to her as a nun "possibly because she had not yet taken her vows". How hard is that to grasp?

Shrap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure two grand wouldn't even get you past the begats when you are calling a mobile in Kenya :rolleyes:

Turns out it's the "byes" they can't get past

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/01/27/bye-bye-bye-bye-made-up-bulk-of-phone-bill-claims-mulherin/

Another classic from WWNews.

katydid

robindch wrote: »

The story says the nuns don't refer to her as a nun "possibly because she had not yet taken her vows". How hard is that to grasp?

Very simple. She's not a nun...

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Very simple. She's not a nun...

She may not have taken her final vows, but to most people, a novice living in a convent, dressing up as a nun and generally adhering to most of the guiding rule -- though obviously not fairly important bit of it -- would constitute "a nun".

BTW, I'm applying logic here to reach a reasonable belief which I believe because I want to believe it. I trust this clarifies my position

katydid

robindch wrote: »

She may not have taken her final vows, but to most people, a novice living in a convent, dressing up as a nun and generally adhering to most of the guiding rule -- though obviously not fairly important bit of it -- would constitute "a nun".

BTW, I'm applying logic here to reach a reasonable belief which I believe because I want to believe it. I trust this clarifies my position

Well the FACT - hate to use the word with you - is that she wasn't a nun. Your reasonable belief can be discounted by FACTS.

See how easy it is?

recedite

There was also another nun recently, who got pregnant while on holiday, as can happen sometimes, especially after a few mojitos.
Technically, as she was on holiday from being a nun at the time, perhaps she was "not a nun" also?
http://jezebel.com/italian-nun-gets-pregnant-and-gives-birth-somehow-1681411104

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

Well the FACT - hate to use the word with you - is that she wasn't a nun. Your reasonable belief can be discounted by FACTS.

See how easy it is?

Bwahahaaa! Robin, you just got pwned. Well played katy

(better than watching big brother, this is....)

Still though....would be nice if you were to present some FACTS supporting your reasonable belief, if it's not too much trouble K?

katydid

Shrap wrote: »

Bwahahaaa! Robin, you just got pwned. Well played katy

(better than watching big brother, this is....)

Still though....would be nice if you were to present some FACTS supporting your reasonable belief, if it's not too much trouble K?

Because you become a nun when you are professed. Before that you are a novice. A pretty basic fact...

Shrap

katydid wrote: »

Because you become a nun when you are professed. Before that you are a novice. A pretty basic fact...

Ah yeah....you got me. I'm on the wrong thread for asking you for facts supporting your Christian beliefs. My bad.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Well the FACT - hate to use the word with you - is that she wasn't a nun.

Well, the FACT is that the nuns could have been trying to save face by saying she wasn't one of them - it wouldn't be the first time that somebody from the church had lied to protect the church's (alleged) reputation.

The original report is here.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

She may not have taken her final vows, but to most people, a novice living in a convent, dressing up as a nun and generally adhering to most of the guiding rule -- though obviously not fairly important bit of it -- would constitute "a nun".

katydid wrote: »

Because you become a nun when you are professed. Before that you are a novice. A pretty basic fact...

Gosh, it's almost like I write something, then you get all huffy and puffy as though you'd thought I'd said exactly the opposite, then correct my point, again getting all huffy and puffy, by saying exactly the same thing as I just had. And you keep doing it!

katy, I think we're made for each other

katydid

robindch wrote: »

Well, the FACT is that the nuns could have been trying to save face by saying she wasn't one of them - it wouldn't be the first time that somebody from the church had lied to protect the church's (alleged) reputation.

The original report is here.

That is speculation, but certainly very likely. My point is just that if she wasn't professed, she wasn't a nun. I like accuracy. :-)

Just had a look at the article. From my limited Italian, I can't see anything in it about her status. They just refer to her as " la suora".

jank

robindch wrote: »

Well, the FACT is that the nuns could have been trying to save face by saying she wasn't one of them - it wouldn't be the first time that somebody from the church had lied to protect the church's (alleged) reputation.

The original report is here.

That is an assumption and opinion not based on any fact at all. So why use the word FACT in an effort to bolster what is just a baseless allegation.
Having the word 'FACT' and then 'could' is deliberately misleading.

Just because you use the word FACT does lead any more credibility to it.
I could say for example.."I know for a FACT that God exists" Then you will ask me for said evidence.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Well, the FACT is that the nuns could have been trying to save face by saying she wasn't one of them - it wouldn't be the first time that somebody from the church had lied to protect the church's (alleged) reputation.

Well, the FACT is that the nuns could be shape-shifting lizards from outer space. (Have we any evidence that they aren't?).

This isn't a particularly useful sense of the word "fact". Just sayin'.

This woman was a nun in the sense that a clerical student is a priest, or in the sense that an undergraduate is a graduate.

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

Because you become a nun when you are professed. Before that you are a novice. A pretty basic fact...

A novice what?

MrP

Peregrinus

Novice, n.: A candidate for admission into a religious order; one who has yet to take the required vows. By extension, an inexperienced person, one who is new to the circumstances in which he or she is placed. Sport.: A competitor (esp. an animal) not having previously won any prize, or not have previously won a prize in the class or event now being entered. Adj.: of, relating to or characteristic of a novice.

robindch

katydid wrote: »

Well the FACT - hate to use the word with you - is that she wasn't a nun. Your reasonable belief can be discounted by FACTS. See how easy it is?

robindch wrote: »

Well, the FACT is that [...]

jank wrote: »

[...] So why use the word FACT in an effort to bolster what is just a baseless allegation. Having the word 'FACT' and then 'could' is deliberately misleading. Just because you use the word FACT does lead any more credibility to it. I could say for example.."I know for a FACT that God exists" Then you will ask me for said evidence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the FACT is that the nuns could be shape-shifting lizards from outer space. (Have we any evidence that they aren't?).

Next time I'm deploying the mildest of ironies, I'll write in green ink or something :rolleyes:

Shrap

Outstanding gif robin. Still laughing :cool:

robindch

"Virginity Suppositories" - seemingly could save your life if you're a newlywed woman in Iran:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/26/iran-s-virginity-suppositories.html

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

"Virginity Suppositories" - seemingly could save your life if you're a newlywed woman in Iran:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/26/iran-s-virginity-suppositories.html

Jesus. Not surprised nobody came back to him with a complaint. They probably died of cervicitis.

"It’s not really a pill, but a suppository. You insert it two or three centimeters into the cervix of the womb, 30 minutes to one hour before intercourse"

:eek::eek:
Hope to fcuk nobody tried this. Extraordinarily dangerous.

RikuoAmero

Shrap wrote: »

Jesus. Not surprised nobody came back to him with a complaint. They probably died of cervicitis.

"It’s not really a pill, but a suppository. You insert it two or three centimeters into the cervix of the womb, 30 minutes to one hour before intercourse"

:eek::eek:
Hope to fcuk nobody tried this. Extraordinarily dangerous.

I thought a suppository was meant to go in the anus, or am I thinking of something else?

recedite

Or, for that extra special first night of Islamic honeymoon, why not try the exploding blood squibs that the movie stunt men use? Much cheaper too.

Or make homemade ones out of those leftover condoms that are no longer needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84924572&v=p5wGpSPOFcA&x-yt-ts=1422411861

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

Or, for that extra special first night of Islamic honeymoon, why not try the exploding blood squibs that the movie stunt men use? Much cheaper too.
..............

Yep, sure what could go wrong?

Hotblack Desiato

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I thought a suppository was meant to go in the anus

Correct. Although maybe the Iranians are working on one to correct loss of virginity there too :pac:

Pessaries go in the vagina.

Shrap

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I thought a suppository was meant to go in the anus, or am I thinking of something else?

No, you're correct! Those lucky women with their "life-saving" information from some dodgy bloke on a phone! Lucky nobody can reach their cervix with any great ease, although some may have applied said "suppository" to the wrong orifice. Hmm. Bit worrying on the wedding night. Again, no wonder nobody said nothing....

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I thought a suppository was meant to go in the anus, or am I thinking of something else?

Most suppositories are administered to the anus, but they can be administered in the vagina, the urethra or indeed any bodily orifice other than the mouth. E.g. bronchodilatory suppositories are administered nasally; certain treatments for erectile disfunction are given as urethral suppositories.

As Hotblack notes, vaginal suppositories are usually called "pessaries", but strictly speaking pessaries are an overlapping category with suppositories. Any mechanism inserted into the vagina is a pessary - e.g. a cervical cap, or a prosthesis to support a prolapsed uterus.

(Is this too much information?)

Bottom line: It's not incorrect to call these objects suppositories. Nor would it be incorrect to call them pessaries. Whether their use is medically advisable or not is another question entirely. Ask your G.P. before you try this at home!

robindch

Fitzgerald urged to lift ban on Good Friday alcohol sales

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fitzgerald-urged-to-lift-ban-on-good-friday-alcohol-sales-1.2082973

Irish Times wrote:

Publicans have met Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald to call for the lifting of a ban on the sale of alcohol on Good Friday. The Vintners Federation of Ireland and the Licensed Vintners Association, which represent publicans outside and in Dublin respectively, said they used the meeting to highlight the importance of the Easter weekend to the pub, hotel and restaurant trades and to ask that licensed trading be permitted on the day.

They said the issue of the ban was especially important this year given that Leinster and Bath are due to clash in rugby’s European Champions Cup in Dublin that weekend. The publicans said tourists “were baffled and disappointed” to find the country’s pubs closed for business on Good Friday.

The Intoxicating Liquor Act, when introduced in 1927, said alcoholic drinks could not be sold on Christmas Day, Good Friday and St Patrick’s Day. The St Patrick’s Day clause was repealed in 1960 to accommodate visitors coming from overseas to celebrate the national holiday. Leinster has said it is opposed to the Aviva Stadium fixture taking place on Good Friday and has requested a tea-time slot for the fixture on the Saturday. However, broadcasters are likely to dictate if the fixture takes place on the Friday, Saturday or Sunday of Easter weekend.

“Having the game on Good Friday would be a disaster economically, as the local pub owners, restaurants and hoteliers would be up in arms given the loss of business to them,” Lenister chief executive Mick Dawson said, adding that it would dissuade Bath fans from travelling over for the game. Mr Dawson said Leinster might be able to obtain a licence to sell alcohol inside the stadium “but that would be as far as it would go”.

The legislation provides exemptions allowing the sale of alcohol to those attending events or travelling by sea, rail, air or ferry. Drink can also be sold to those attending a licensed theatre. Guests staying in hotels, can be served drink, as long as it is taken with a meal. The publicans said similar issues would arise again at Easter in 2016 when the centenary of the 1916 Rising will be commemorated. It would be “ludicrous if the hospitality sector was essentially closed on such an important date while other retailers were free to trade normally”, the groups said.

A spokesman for Ms Fitzgerald said the issue of Good Friday trading was being considered in the context of the upcoming Sale of Alcohol Bill but that the drafting was unlikely to be completed until later in the year.
“It is unlikely that any decision will be taken in advance of ongoing work on this Bill although the matter will be kept under review,” he said.

magicbastarder

i don't have a major issue with a day where people can't drink. but to balance it out with other activities, there should be a day where soccer (or talking about it) is banned.