Politics, Economics, and Religion

Information

Politics, Economics, and Religion

Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.  

Members: 96
Latest Activity: yesterday

What is the purpose of life?

An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.

Discussion Forum

An Open Letter to Congressman John Boehner

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Saturday. 2 Replies

Some days ago, Congressman John Boehner (R - Ohio) wrote an op-ed piece entitled, "…Continue

Tags: president, Barack Obama, sue, John Boehner

Tomgram: Engelhardt, The Age of Impunity

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Saturday. 5 Replies

TomDispatch  http://t.co/nKYjnph4Ke"For America’s national security state, this is the age of impunity.  …Continue

Why we're headed for another Great Crash

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 2. 1 Reply

Thom Hartmann makes a case that we're driving the economy to another Great Crash.The denial of fundamental economic principles is setting the world up for another Great Crash.... corporate banks have ... discovered that instead of lending money to…Continue

Tags: financialization

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 4, 2012 at 4:04pm

That snap poll that said 67% thought Romney won the presidential debate had me worried. But the uncommitted voters in the audience turned out to be "nearly all white, Southern and over 50." Not representative at all of US citizenry. It sounds like the Republicans managed to hoodwink us again, stuffing the peanut gallery, to give the impression their guy would win and discourage Dems.

Comment by Plinius on October 4, 2012 at 2:21am

This is really disgusting - if the justice system won't protect the weak there's nothing left. You might as well overturn your Supreme Court.

Comment by Tony Carroll on October 3, 2012 at 8:17pm

Joan you're right. This isn't a right/left issue. This is a fairness issue. Small excert from the article;

In a 4-3 ruling Tuesday afternoon, the Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who had sex with a woman who “has severe cerebral palsy, has the intellectual functional equivalent of a 3-year-old and cannot verbally communicate.” The Court held that, because Connecticut statutes define physical incapacity for the purpose of sexual assault as “unconscious or for any other reason. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act,” the defendant could not be convicted if there was any chance that the victim could have communicated her lack of consent. Since the victim in this case was capable of “biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing,” the Court ruled that that victim could have communicated lack of consent despite her serious mental deficiencies:

WTF!! Pardon me, but mental capacity of a 3 y.o. with CP, and further in the article, find out she is confined to a wheelchair! Gimme an effing break.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 3, 2012 at 8:07pm

Furthermore, This is so terribly outrageously ignorant of not one, but four judges who overturned the conviction of a rapist! Absurd! I wonder, if any one of those judges had a daughter with cerebral palsy and mental capacity of three years, would their sense of justice have been different? 
I don't think this is a right or left issue! Justice, fairness, accountability weigh heavy on the minds and hearts of the liberals I know. So, we don't think the state should put citizens to death, we do think the state should hold people accountable and responsible for harming others and indeed, the state should provide protections for those who are unable to protect themselves.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 3, 2012 at 7:49pm

Tony, this is terrible news! If courts don't know the word "NO" then why should a rapist? Besides, many counselors advise women to do what they believe will be safest for them, and if not resisting means less trauma, then that is what a woman should do. It is better to be raped and alive than raped and dead. Just common sense. 
If the judge were walking down a street and some thug held him up for his watch, rings, and wallet, should he resist? Or should he acquiesce and deal with remembering the face and features of the thug? 

Comment by Tony Carroll on October 3, 2012 at 6:02pm

 Think Progress Comments for TPR.

Court Requires Disabled Rape Victim To Prove She Resisted, Calls For Evidence Of ‘Biting, Kicking, Scratching’

 
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 3, 2012 at 5:41pm

Comment by sk8eycat on October 3, 2012 at 12:08pm

Greg.  Oh.  I getcha.

Most of what I know about Roman methods of trials and punishments comes from reading Colleen Mc Cullough's "Masters of Rome" series.  I know that's fiction, but it's very well-researched (13 years before she started the 1st book!), so I believe she's accurate.  The only problem is that the novels only cover the last 100+ years of the Republic (and what ruined it...Cato and other hyper-coonservatives, and growth.), and Romans of that time had a horror of capital punishment.  The most extreme penalty (in Rome itself) was to throw the guilty party off the Tarpeian Rock.  Otherwise they were usually exiled.

A private citizen had the right to crucify one of his/her slaves.  Julius Caesar crucified 50 or 60 pirates who had captured him for ransom when he was in his early 20s.  And then there was the Spartacus-led revolt and its gruesome aftermath.

But during the time of the Republic, capital punishment of any kiind was rare.  I don't really know much about the empire.

Comment by Plinius on October 3, 2012 at 3:08am

I don't find stuff like that when I read about agnostics, anti-theists, atheists, Brights, freethinkers, humanists, secular humanists, skeptics, or spiritual humanists. Have you ever read or heard of violent supporters of these beliefs? A lot of them suffer at the hands of theists ... and non-believers certainly have been called all kinds of vile things.

And can I defend myself without descending to their level? I think that everybody has got a right to his/her own opinion, own body, own way to live or die - and those rights should only be restricted where they violate other's rights. I wouldn't know how to talk to theists, or how to influence them. I tried with my fundie parents, when they lived, but anything beyond "Would you have some more tea?" was spoken in a language they couldn't understand.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 3, 2012 at 1:19am

"Are Christians Delusional?" Richard Carrier Skepticon 3

Richard Carrier author of "Sense and Goodness without God", "Proving History", and "Not the Impossible Faith". A Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, and ancient philosophy, science and technology.

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service