Did you ever hear the line that "God made man in his own image"? I think this one makes more sense: "Man made God in his own image". This would explain why this perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being is vain to the point of banishing mere insignificant humans to an eternity of torment for the "crime" of not worshipping him. An actual supreme being would be a little (actually a lot) more secure in his godliness, and would care not a wit about whether I wanted to believe in him or not.

I will have some final thoughts on Atheism/Theism very soon, I'm finishing a book first actually, but for now I will say this:

If anybody wants to believe in a god, or God, or Allah, or Yaweh or Krishna or whoever or whatever than I say fine, go for it anybody, just don't expect me to. Shouldn't be a problem, right? This is America, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, all that. You believe what you believe about the after-life and theories of how and why we came to be and I'll believe what I believe, even if I don't really "believe" anything, (I just know some stuff). (And maybe suspect some other stuff).

But anyway, this sounds very simple, doesn't it? Then why isn't it easy? Hmmm... I guess it's because most of these "belief" systems come with a "moral code", don't they? I'm not saying that's wrong or bad either, we need a moral code. But that tends to vary somewhat with each person, doesn't it? Think about issues like abortion, or sexuality or drug use or even a right to die. The problems that we run into, in my opinion, arise when one group tries to impose its moral code on the other members of society by claiming that it is God's will. Bullshit I say. Who is to say what is "God's will"?,even if we were willing to stipulate that there is a God, which I am not. Is anyone claiming direct contact? Usually not. Though there have been some, and others that have, sort of. No, usually they will cite the "Bible", and that's not a good source. Anybody that says that we should live by the Bible, and everything that it says either hasn't read it or needs to be evaluated. Most people that tout the Bible mean some parts of it, the parts that they choose, so they're basically saying that what they think counts more than what I think. Again, bullshit.

Let each have his/her say and each of us has one vote, that's the way it's supposed to be, right?

If God has a will regarding how we should live then why would he not make it known to us? Really I mean. Cuz you can see that we don't, collectively, know. Apparently using good sense and respecting each other and like that is not too popular.

This could probably be funny if it was not so fucked up:


Saddam trial 'flawed and unsound'
The trial of Saddam Hussein was so flawed that its verdict is unsound, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch says.
The former Iraqi leader was sentenced to death on 5 November after being convicted of crimes against humanity.

But HRW said it had documented "serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" that meant he did not get a fair trial.

The Iraqi government has dismissed the report, telling the BBC that the trial was both "just and fair".

Appeal controversy

Saddam Hussein has two more weeks to lodge an appeal against the verdict - but his lawyer claims he has been blocked from doing so.

Chief defence lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi told the BBC his team had been prevented from filing appeal papers. Under Iraqi law it must be done within a month of sentencing.

However, the chief prosecutor, Jafaar al-Mousawi, has told the BBC it was a fair trial.
He said the appeal would be automatic because a death sentence had been passed - and that the relevant papers had been sent to the appeal court.

Mr al-Mousawi's claims that the trial was fair were echoed by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari:

"We believe strongly that the trial was fair and Saddam Hussein had every right to defend himself," he told the BBC. "The procedure, I think, in the court, was witnessed by the whole world."

"It wasn't something done behind closed doors or through summary justice, as was the case during his rule. And we stand really by the court's verdict, and we believe the trial was just and fair."

Historical record

Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants all faced charges of crimes against humanity relating to the deaths of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following an assassination attempt on the Iraqi leader in 1982.

Two of his co-defendants also received death sentences.
Saddam Hussein is now being tried on a different set of charges relating to a military campaign against ethnic Kurds in the late 1980s, in which more than 180,000 people are alleged to have died.

The New York-based HRW group said the trials were among the most important since the Nazi trials in Nuremberg after World War II.

They "represent the first opportunity to create a historical record concerning some of the worst cases of human rights violations, and to begin the process of a methodical accounting of the policies and decisions that give rise to these events", the report said.

The BBC's David Loyn in Baghdad says HRW's disappointment is the greater because it considers the Iraqi court to have failed to take account of the international significance of this trial and the one currently under way.

Supporters of war crimes trials say that they can improve healing after conflict, our correspondent says, but like so much else in post-Saddam Iraq, his trial does not seem to have achieved that lofty ambition.

Lawyers murdered

HRW based its scathing assessment on extensive observation of court proceedings, and interviews with judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and court administrators involved.

The imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible
Human Rights Watch

The trial took just over one year to complete and was the first case brought before the Iraqi High Tribunal.

Proceedings were marked by frequent outbursts by both judges and defendants.

Three defence lawyers were murdered, three judges left the five-member panel and the original chief judge was replaced.

Defence lawyers boycotted proceedings but HRW said court-appointed counsel that took their place lacked adequate training in international law.

In addition, important documents were not given to defence lawyers in advance, no written transcript was kept and paperwork was lost, said HRW.

The defence was also prevented from cross-examining witnesses and the judges made asides that pre-judged Saddam Hussein.

'Indefensible penalty'

The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority decided that the Dujail trial would be held by an Iraqi court in Iraq, ruling out an international tribunal or a mixed Iraqi-international court under UN auspices, the HRW report said.

Because Iraqi lawyers and judges had been isolated from international criminal law, this decision resulted in a court that lacked the expertise to prosecute crimes against humanity on its own, the report said.
Defence counsel come under criticism in the report for trying to use the court as a political platform.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government was guilty of influencing the independence of the judges, the report said, to the extent that the first chief judge resigned.

"Under such circumstances the soundness of the verdict is questionable," HRW concludes.

"In addition, the imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6163938.stm

Published: 2006/11/20 01:40:33 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Human Rights Watch doesn't necessarily speak for me but what do you wanna bet that everything they allege is pretty much true? I don't know quite what to say.

Why would you not make sure to do everything right in a trial of this magnitude? Not possible? Can you at least make sure that the court appointed defense attorneys are competent? Or are we looking at a situation in which competent counsel for the defense would have meant an acquittal? I suppose there wasn't much hard evidence presented, just testimonial evidence for something that happened fifteen years ago, or whenever.

It's entirely possible that the appeal is just a formality; it sounds like the prosecution is "taking care of it".

It's probably true that this guy deserves to be "put down" more than any other human being, at least of the eligible ones, and yet, if they just go ahead and kill him in February or whenever what does that say about the court system that brought this about? Definition 4 in my dictionary of the word "summary" is: (of legal proceedings, jurisdiction, etc.) conducted without, or exempt from, the various steps and delays of a formal trial. Sounds about right.

OK?

I'm trying to decide how I feel about this:

Rumsfeld may face abuse charges Donald Rumsfeld, who quit as US defence secretary this week, may face criminal charges in Germany for alleged abuses in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq.
A complaint has been launched by the US-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, representing a Saudi detained in Cuba and 11 Iraqis held in Baghdad.
German law allows the pursuit of cases originating anywhere in the world.
The centre made a similar request in 2004 but German prosecutors dropped that case.
Resignation
The Centre for Constitutional Rights argues that Mr Rumsfeld was instrumental in abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.
The lawyer group alleges that Mr Rumsfeld personally approved torture to be used to extract information from the prisoners.
It is also seeking to prosecute US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former CIA director George Tenet, among others.
The group's complaint will be filed to German federal prosecutors on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the group said.
The prosecutors will have to again decide whether the complaint should be heard.
Mr Rumsfeld resigned on Wednesday following Republican losses to the Democrats in the US mid-term elections.
The Pentagon has not yet commented on the issue.
The US denies any torture has taken place at Guantanamo Bay and has defended its interrogation techniques.
Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was brought to world attention after photographs of the incidents were released and published.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6138480.stm

Published: 2006/11/11 04:47:33 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Anybody have any thoughts?

I have to apologize for commenting on this piece of non-news, I like to keep this blog a little more relevant:

Britney faces child custody fight

By Peter Bowes
BBC News, Los Angeles
Kevin Federline says he is planning to fight pop star Britney Spears for sole custody of their children.
In court papers filed in Los Angeles, the rapper says he intends to take action to protect and safeguard their two young sons.
Spears made the first move by filing for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences as the reason.
She said she wanted physical and legal custody of the couple's year-old son and new baby.
But 24 hours later, Federline has started the legal process to seek sole custody of the two children. He also wants spousal support.
According to the rapper's lawyer, he is prepared to go the distance in order to do what he feels is necessary to protect and safeguard the children - and will not be intimidated or dissuaded from pursuit of those goals.
Story from BBC NEWS:

Actions to protect and safeguard their two young sons. From the evil Britney. OK, maybe she's not my idea of a perfect mother. But... what the hell is he? I do not know any of the people involved but what do you suppose the chances are that he is doing this out of spite? 100% or 99.9?

Oh yeah, he will also be seeking spousal support. Riiiiight. Well I think he should get it. As soon as he physically cedes possession of his balls to her. What an incredible dumbass.