Deeply religious people should not be judges. Their judgement is inevitably biased. People’s lives should not depend on the religious choices and opinions of people in power.
Would you say the same about women? What about queer people? What about the social class? What about ethnicity? What about deelpy atheist people?
For any group identity you can make such claims of biases. Instead of excluding everyone from becoming judges, because everyone will have some form of bias, we should look by their qualifications and act if they show clear biases making them unfit. In this case the ICJ vice-president showed a clear bias making her unfit. However before making religious claims she already was a mouth-piece for Israel in the court and there is reason to believe her being blackmailed or bribed.
There is a reason why there is so many judges on the ICJ and why most supreme courts have a high number of judges. It is to limit biases going into the decision by having a wide range of people, whose inevitable biases are cancelled out against each other.
Being a woman, or a queer person, or ethnicity are not belief systems, they are biological traits. Even financial status is not a belief system. Religion is a belief system by definition. Like politics are. But politics can be studied historically and analised socially and economically, and can be chosen based on data and evidence. Religion is a belief system based on no evidence whatsoever. Religion is akin to superstition: a belief unsupported by evidence. There are thousands of religions in the world, each one believing different things, each one claiming to be The Ultimate Truth and - what’s worse- to be above human laws. Picking one is completely arbitrary (usually determined by upbringing). Judges working under the influence of different religions rule differently on the same topics.
I’ll prove you that qualifications alone are not enough: if I had the appropriate qualifications to become a Supreme Court judge, but I claimed that the Sacred Pink Unicorn, supreme Goddess of Truth, guides my judgment and speaks to me in my dreams and tells me what’s wrong and what’s right, would you consider my impeccable qualifications enough? The only difference between the Sacred Pink Unicorn and any other deity is the number of people believing in it.
A judge who is spiritual may still maintain objectivity, but a judge who is deeply religious cannot be trusted to be objective, in my opinion.
Being a woman, or a queer person, or ethnicity are not belief systems, they are biological traits.
There is many bigots who claim the contrary and there is an entire culture war going on right now on the claim that whether people being openly queer or women doing “manly” things are doing so from an agenda. Making the same claims against religious people or “deeply religious people” is equally wrong. Also “deeply religious” is an arbitrary concept similar to saying someone is “too queer” or that a women would be “too much out of line” or similar nonsense.
Even financial status is not a belief system.
There is a lot of empirical results that show a strong correlation between wealth and ideologies. Also just very basically, judges for the most part come from higher financial classes which limits the life experience they have to understand the situation of poor people. Again the point is to move from the generalization to look at the specific person in question. E.g. a judge that has a track record of decisions favoring wealthy people probably has a problematic bias, but there is judges who do not show such biases.
But politics can be studied historically and analised socially and economically, and can be chosen based on data and evidence.
Economists literally have “schools of thought” that they choose to follow. Those are believe systems. Any good sociologist, ethnologist, historian, anthropologist and other humanities researcher will acknowledge that they are biased and that their analysis and interpretation remain subjective. It is very common to have two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same set of “data and evidence”.
There are thousands of religions in the world, each one believing different things, each one claiming to be The Ultimate Truth and - what’s worse- to be above human laws. Picking one is completely arbitrary (usually determined by upbringing).
That is a very generalized claim that seems to come from a place of anti-religious belief, rather than an empirical analysis. Very basically there is more than 4 billion religious people in the world. If a relevant number of them would believe to be above human laws, society would look very different.
Judges working under the influence of different religions rule differently on the same topics.
So do judges of different gender, ethnicity and other group identities. If you believe that these play no role, then you would see no need for representation in higher courts.
I’ll prove you that qualifications alone are not enough: if I had the appropriate qualifications to become a Supreme Court judge, but I claimed that the Sacred Pink Unicorn,
You are arguing against a straw man here. I said: “we should look by their qualifications and act if they show clear biases making them unfit”
As you make up the straw man as a generalization against religious people as a whole, or your arbitrary category of “deeply religious people”, you are engaging in bigotry as you generalize onto a broad group of people. The same can be seen by the culture warriors attacking women, queers, racialized groups…All of your arguments are subjective and the result of your prejudice against religious people. I think these prejudice are working by the same mechanisms like prejudice against other group identities and i hope that this helps you to question and overcome them.
Do any of those groups have a shared belief dystem that is inherently unprovable? What do all women believe? What do all queers believe?
I dont want people who believe in a utopian afterlife deciding if I die or not.
Even your atheist argument sucks because their common belief is lack of belief in someone elses shite.
All laws written by humans are a common belief system and “inherently unprovable”. There is no proof why the constitution of the United States would be better or worse than the constitution of France. There is no proof why international law would be right or wrong. Try explaining the Geneva convention to the emperors of the past… All of these are based on shared values and entirely dependent on the human subjects, not some objective fact.
You are constructing a justification for bigotry, by saying that it is acceptable to exclude one group of people based on your generalizations against them. I tried to show you that it is arbitrary as all bigotry is.
Most laws are based in reducing human suffering, including religious text. Don’t use chemical weapons? Yeah, cool. Gurgling on your own intestines sounds like a pretty sweet thing to not have to worry about. Most of the 10 commandments are little more than “don’t be a dick of a human”. But religion has a way of taking it too far and instead start increasing suffering. Waging wars because the land is “rightfully” theirs. Honour killings because they love the wrong person. Enriching themselves at the cost of others, justifying it by saying god is rewarding them for their loyalty.
LGBTQ+, feminism, BLM and so on are there to reduce suffering and grant humans the rights they deserve. If a queer judge is biased towards not making their fellow queer people suffer more, then I don’t see a problem with that. If a judge has a bias towards continuing genocide, then yeah, there’s an issue.
This is such a dumb fucking take.
I guess being a woman makes me want to punish people for not following some dumbass rule book dreamed up by some losers a long time ago.
Being gay makes me want to punish the straights and exterminate them.
My point exactly. Bigotry is wrong and making up reasons why bigotry against one group would be acceptable is just more bigotry and equally wrong.
Removed by mod
Judge Sebutinde, your eschatology is bad. But your paterology is even worse. You might be a heretic; whoever taught you this nonsense definitely is.
someone so clearly admitting their own bias should not be allowed to serve on a court. that’s like the whole point of a trial. not to mention just how horrifying the end times/rapture zionism ideology is in general
I suppose she wouldn’t mind going to meet this Lord a little early then? Seriously every single person that espouses something like this, should be immediately expelled from any government position.
I am at the point where if someone is openly religious, I OPENLY avoid them. I don’t want anything to do with these delusional psychopaths.
Judge Julia Sebutinde says signs of the end times ‘are being shown in the Middle East’
Why tf would anyone want to fulfill the prophecy of the antichrist.
“Yeah let’s accelerate this genocide so that the entire world can get screwed over”
They think this life is a transitional state and accelerating toward their mythological end times gets their sky wizard’s kid/avatar to come back. This we all get to be happy, except those that aren’t Christian. We’re all fucked. These fuckers are insane.
What i’m not getting is why these Christians in the US want the last judgement to arrive at all.
The way they seem to treat everyone, with cruelty, a cold heart, and lots of violence, is basically a guarantee they’re not gonna go to paradise. Why, then, do they wish for the last judgement?
Right, imagine standing in front of God and saying “Yeah I did all those horrible things since it was a sign of the end times”.
Like why do they think that somehow qualifies them getting into heaven.
Even best case scenario, you still have to deal with essentially the apocalypse on Earth before you even reach the point of judgment.
They think their god basically works like Trump. He’s an asshole, but if you can stay on his good side you’ll get crumbs.
they want to be blessed by jebus
Believers of a death cult promising salvation in the afterlife.
Sounds like a resignation speech to me.
And judges who respond to voices in their head should never be allowed to hold office.
internal screaming in Americanese intensifies
wasn’t there a study done that showed that approx. 50% of adults have an inner monologue that is something like a voice in their head?
Are you really so obtuse as to think that interior monologue and schizophrenia are the same thing?
Monologue is fine. It’s when you can have a dialogue, that’s the problem.
What if i have a dialogue with myself? I.e. i respond to my own messages.
What can i do, i don’t have any other close friends to talk to :(
Healthier to do that than to try being friends with a chatbot like a lot of lonely folks do
It’s certainly the last days for the muslim children getting bombed by Israel.
She should be fired
Immediately. Judges should be impartial.
And not insane.
They should also not be suffering from extreme mental illness, like she is.
The fact that this person is an ICJ judge shows you that we are living in a clown world. Our entire civilization has no clothes. We are talking chimps conducting a reckless, unplanned terraform of spaceship Earth. Our intelligence is no match for our hubris. If you haven’t figured it out yet, we are approaching our great filter and the perpetrator is ourselves.
As she said, we are approaching the “end times”, except what comes after is the eternal nothingness of the void; the only remanence being another dead rock hurtling through space.
Oh i’m pretty sure life on Earth won’t go extinct. The dinosaurs weren’t the last living beings either.
In fact if humans go extinct, they’ll probably be replaced by another hyper-intelligent species in less than 100 million years, i guess. Which is 2% of earth’s age.
Also, probably not even humanity will go extinct due to climate change. The real crisis is the late-stage capitalism which is like a cancer that eats away all the resources so the healthy tissue (humans) can’t live anymore.
The argument has been made that, even if another intelligence arises in 100 million years, there are multiple problems for them: the Sun will be burning hotter by then, easily accessible raw material will all have been used up (Cyprus is no longer covered in surface-level raw copper, for example), we’ll probably irradiate the surface on our way out, etc.
That might mean they figure out their societal problems before they try to industrialize
easily accessible raw material will all have been used up
doesn’t that just mean that these end up in landfills, i.e. close to the surface?
In landfill, but not as raw material. If you didn’t already know how to make bronze, for example, you’d have a hell of a time making new bronze based on old contaminated remnants.
Out of a cannon. Into the sun.
Out of judge canon, thereby causing irreparable rupture of both parties’ organs.
We don’t do that anymore: electric chair, injection or a bullet.
Executing someone for being delusional or heavily propagandized strikes me as morally dubious, removing a politician from power achieves a similar effect without having to embrace capital punishment.
I just offered more modern methods instead of burning at stake.
Okay that made me chuckle. I was like who said burn her at the stake?.. Oh
Reason #N+1 weird-ass cultists should be disqualified from all leadership positions.
Ass cultists lol
Ass cultists at least make sense.
I’m not sure whether you’re joking or you’re serious but lots of influential organizations around the world are deeply religious. My favorite example for this is the freemasons, which have a belief in some sort of god as one of the requirements to join them.
So, in practical terms, there’s a 0% chance that “religion” will disqualify people from leadership positions in today’s world. Come up with demands that can be more easily met. Such as not partaking in or supporting a genocide.
I’m sick of real peoples’ needs (such as not getting genocided, for example, that’s a big one) being ignored because elected/appointed/whatever officials of all kinds have this insane baked-in backdoor to override their reasoning abilities. Somebody’s god’s rules (as filtered through however many translations and re-tellings it took to reach them) should not be a factor in public policy any more than their favorite flavor of ice cream. It’s fine to like that ice cream, maybe even vote on matters related to that flavor of ice cream if they can do it without giving their personal preferences undue weight compared to those of the people they’re supposed to represent.
Stuff like this end-of-days apocalypse-seeking behavior in the article makes sense if someone’s in their waning years and, as in some cases, are convinced that they’re The Main Character of life. The usual orange turd-faucet and his Russian puppet-master come to mind too. Clearly it has to happen within their lifetime because otherwise what’s the point so onward Christian soldiers or some shit. Don’t need an environment where we’re going either, hallelujah.
I do think that a person who relies on religious justification for their official acts in a leadership / law-making / influential position is unfit for their job* and should resign before they damage humanity any further. That goes doubly so if they’re screwing over living-for-now people in favor of a dead apocalyptic “prophet” from 2000 years ago who liked to yell at fig trees and be wrong about mustard.
*Aside from in a theocracy since that’s kinda their job by definition (but shouldn’t be).
Did he tell you so directly?
What a ridiculous thing for a judge to say. It’s amazing that people can seemingly rise so high up in the field of law, only to become extremely biased and do the exact opposite of what they’re supposed to be doing.
Oh good, another accelerationist in power who thinks they’re the catalyst for the rapture.
The thing that confounds me the most is that these people have been rejecting our experienced reality and believing in some post-apocalyptic utopia for CENTURIES. But belief upon belief, attempt after attempt, they have only shown that their belief-system has no foundation or champion whose power they can invoke. But, instead of saying “we have the resources to make utopia exist here and now,” they say, “we must not have pleased our friend who hasn’t shown his face in MILLENNIA. But I know for a fact that he’s real, so we just gotta cause a biblical apocalypse for all the chess pieces we feed and employ.”
I am religious. I find the idea of purposefully bringing on the end of times strongly contradictory to my understanding of the Abrahamic religions. It is not the place of humans to decide, when the end times come, nor do humans have the power to do so. And the idea that purposefully bringing on the end of the world would be rewarded, instead of punished, by God is incomprehensible to me.
There is a narration both in Judaism and Islam, that emphasizes this:
“If the [Day of] Resurrection were established upon one of you, and in his hand is a sapling, then he should plant it.”
عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِنْ قَامَتْ عَلَى أَحَدِكُمْ الْقِيَامَةُ وَفِي يَدِهِ فَسْلَةٌ فَلْيَغْرِسْهَا[1][2]“If you are holding a sapling in your hand and someone tells you, ‘Come quickly, the Messiah is here!’, first finish planting the tree and then go to greet the Messiah.” – Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (30 BC – 90 CE),
If it’s not our place to bring on the end times, then it’s also not our place to stand in the way.
That’s the problem. These people are telling themselves “if this is how it happens, who am I to stand in the way?” Think about it: if you see events in motion which could be the stirrings of god bringing about the end times, how could you possibly act in a completely neutral way, neither hastening nor hindering? It’s too fine a line for an humble mortal to assume they can walk.
So while I appreciate your thought, unfortunately your thinking is far too easily flipped around. The base problem is believing any of this stuff to begin with. Once you do, that’s it.
If it were the end of times made by gods, a person shouldn’t have any ability to stop it.
Sounds more like their God is testing them on whether or not they are a good person, and they are failing spectacularly.
Yeah I can’t understand how religious people think about these things. They believe that people can be judged, right? So they must at least be able to make a choice. Maybe they can choose not to help bring about the end times, even if they’re ultimately lack the power to make the difference? Who the fuck knows. This is like debating how magic works.
God commanded us good things to do and prohibited us from doing bad things.
You should just life your life in accordance with that as good as possible and don’t concern yourself with when the end times are, or when your life ends. It is important not to postpone doing good things, or to continue doing bad things thinking “i’ll just make up for them later.” Because God might decide to end your life in an accident or other sudden way.
There is no indication afaik. in any of the Abrahamic scriptures that you should try to fulfill any prophecies and it certainly does not take priorities over doing what is good in on itself and abstaining from what is bad in on itself.
I would have figured they see it as a point system, and if your below X when the end of times occurs, which is inevitable and of course didnt matter for every generation before or after theirs because they were already dead or yet to be born… they tally up their points. If they judged their neighbor -10 points. Drank a beer, -10 points, listened to rock and roll -10 points. Had sex out of wedlock -100 points. Had sex without trying to make a child -100 points. Lusted for / checked out someone, -50. Vanity, Greed… -75 points. Positives, helping others is really the only way I can think of to increase the score. And a lot more people are complaining about people in traffic than helping people cross the street.
Positives, helping others is really the only way I can think of to increase the score
Then you are more evolved than Christians. Unfortunately Christianity is unclear on whether helping people actually matters, or just faith in god. I’m being completely serious.
See: https://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html
I’m reminded of the quote by Heraclitus: “Though reason is common, most people live as though they had an understanding peculiar to themselves.” Religion is not immune to this, with people often twisting it to suit their own goals.
Your comment reminded me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2RXoqB1LjA
A recent ~2 minute video from the ever-excellent Dr. Dan McClellen. The opening sentence is: “Every last attempt to identify divine commands in the Bible that are relevant to anyone today requires negotiating with the text.”
understanding peculiar to themselves
it’s also called instinct
Pychotic death cult
How does one know what lord wants?
Easy. It’s the same thing you want. Every time.
INCORRECT!!
Anyways I’m off to the kitchen, the lord has instructed me to have a cookie!!
Well obviously. I am the best person and made in the image of the “lord”, therefore the “lord” MUST think like I do. My thoughts aren’t my own, they’re the “lord’s”. Or something to that extend.
deleted by creator
