That's depressing, but hopefully the new judge and the media will help make sure that she gets her child back.

It's amazing how something like making fun of religion or be satirical of it can make a great difference in one's life.

A judge like that should be removed from the bench. It's just one more example of the harm religion does on a daily basis.

Free thinking’s under constant attack, Baah baah, the sound of the pack. A Utah blogger called Norm, For super naturalists, pours but scorn. Don’t put your kid on a plane, you won’t get him back.

I agree that this dude should be removed from the bench. This is the sort of 'judicial activism' that makes me queasy. It also highlights the fact that there is precious little justice to be found in the family court system. It's so capricious, random, and unfair.

A judge like that should be removed from the bench. It's just one more example of the harm religion does on a daily basis.

Yeah, and when a liberal judge makes a crappy decision it's just one more example of the harm liberalism does on a daily basis?

Norm, focus your anger & frustration on individual people, please. Statements like the one you made above do nothing but stoke the fires of ignorance and extremism.

Religion is the basis of his decision. Everyone makes bad decisions, religion because it is faith based is particularly pernicious. Is that clear, belief in religion is faith based. It is belief without credible evidence. It is at its very core flawed for that reason. I think your analogy is a poor one. Liberalism isn't faith based.

Exactly.

The difference is, when a freethinker makes a decision we don't agree with, we can, at the very least, have an inclusive discussion about it because the decision will be based upon evidence of some sort. There will be a line of reasoning to follow which is universally accessible.

When a person makes a faith-based decision we don't agree with, we can't access his or her line of reasoning because it simply doesn't exist. The decision was based upon faith, a mode of non-thinking which makes claims regardless of evidence or reasoning in either direction.

This is the crucial separation. It's quite simple when you look at it.

Religion is the basis of his decision. Everyone makes bad decisions, religion because it is faith based is particularly pernicious. Is that clear, belief in religion is faith based. It is belief without credible evidence. It is at its very core flawed for that reason. I think your analogy is a poor one. Liberalism isn't faith based.

Pardon my French, but that's a crock.

You have a problem with this guy and what he did. Most other judges who happened to be religious wouldn't have necessarily made the same decision. 'Religion' does not say 'Go, and take children away from those who mock faith.' It is the judge who is the problem here, not religion. End of story.

And Liberalism (along with every other political movement) is as faith-based as anything else. It's a subjective choice to declare one set of values more important than another. Or are you claiming that liberalism is somehow intrinsically scientific, and conservatism not?

That you would try to defend such an obviously biased, loaded, and flawed statement only feeds my continued disappointment in the social & political state of our country. I (like you, I believe) am offended every time I see conservatives twist the truth in order to undermine their opposition ('If you're against the war, you hate America!').

Your declaration was every bit as misleading. If you really can't see (or admit) that, then I think you're every bit as blinded by your cause as the worst of your opponents.

Pardon my French, but that's a crock.

Quoi? You are say (h)ere zat zeez ees ze way zat zee Fwench speak? Non, I don't seenk so. If you are really going to pardon you langauge, at least use a good heart-felt phrase like, "That's a bunch of bullshit." If you are going to inject some emotion into this, "bullshit" works better than "crock."

I didn't know Norm's position on language. I originally used a different word, but then pulled it out.

No, wait! I of course meant it was a croc, which as we all know is a French word for pitchfork, because I thought that the statement while it had several points, was reminiscent of something used to shovel dung?

How about that?

Although I agree it's a bad judge and a bad decision, this is without a doubt the most spin-heavy reporting of the proceedings I've seen. Let's start with calling the Church of the Subgenius a "satire performance group." This is a little like calling Burning Man a "counterconventional sociology conference."

Looked at a little more objectively, in any custody battle, before any judge, if one parent walks into the courtroom with photos of the other participating prominently in an event with satanic, bondage and orgiastic overtones, that judge will develop deep concerns over the depicted person's suitability to be a parent. It's a sad fact of modern life that parents in even a simmering custody battle must be very careful how they express themselves publicly. People have lost children over a lot less, and even in a much more liberal court, Bevilacqua would have had to answer some very tough questions with regard to the contents of those photographs.

Jeff Jary (the father) got very lucky in finding a judge as reactionary as Punch. The true malcompetence in this case was that Punch allowed his impartiality to be not so much swayed as utterly eliminated by Jary's descriptions of the Subgenius organization. Judges should always know better than to take one parent solely at his word in such cases, but Punch seemingly does not. As I read it, Punch then began taking a series of unilateral and preemptive actions against Bevilacqua, all on Jary's word. On more than one occasion he granted temporary sole custody to Jary without a hearing (including a "raid" by state police at Bevilacqua's mother's house), and when Bevilacqua did get her day in court, Punch's questioning took the form of a witch hunt rather than an impartial inquiry.

Although, again, I agree there's no reason so reactionary person as Punch should be making decisions in a family court, there's a lot going on here and it does a disservice to the truth to simplify it down to "make fun of the judge's religion and the judge takes your child away." Given the circumstances she might've gotten a similar reaction from a nonreligious judge.

Interesting that the same religious nuts who complain so loudly about "relativism" also whine and complain that their faith is just as legitimate as reason and science.

Everything is an equally valid, "subjective choice." Praying that a hurricane doesn't wipe out your city is a choice equal to and just as valid as building levees to protect it. Praying that your cancer goes away is choice equal to and just as valid as having a surgeon remove it.

Judge Punch? This is what happens when you have puppets as judges. The mother's lucky he didn't grind the child into sausage!

Hi Kevin, I think you misunderstoodf what tghe others are saying with your statement:

"It is the judge who is the problem here, not religion. End of story."

What they are saying is that Judge Punch made his decision to deprive the mother of all parental rights because she has recently participated in the performance of a statire group that pokes fun an religion.

The issue here is his religious beliefs that motivated his action. This is clearly the case in America when the recent court nominees are appointed by President Bush based on their religious views.

Christian followers do believe that American values come with faith in the Church and that disbelief does not make one morally fit. In this case, religion did play a role in the Judge's decision.

I see no bias here, except the biases of the Judge.

If common sense and reason played a part in this, the verdict would have been very much different.

I defined faith-based as belief without credible evidence. I assume that is the defintion the conversation is based on, but knowing of Kevin's practice of avoiding definitions and then redefining things to support his argument, it is worth repeating here. Take the the following statment,

"And Liberalism (along with every other political movement) is as faith-based as anything else."

Are you fucking kidding me, saying that any political movement no matter how little or how much evidence it provides to support its view is the same. A notion that is absurd on the face of it.

He continues "It's a subjective choice to declare one set of values more important than another"

The problem is the judge in this case isn't deciding the case on values since both the religious and non-religious have values. In most instances they are the same values. This isn't a case of comparing one set of values with another. It is declaring that belief in a God itself is a value. Belief in God may assume certain values, but the belief itself is not a value. It is deciding that if lack belief in god a person doesn't have the proper values nor the right to have custody of their children. It is the absurd idea that people who don't buy into religion, that those who are atheists don't have values.

Many of those that are religious manage to compartmentalize their religion and use reason to make decisions, but there are some that base their decisions on faith in a belief alone sans reason. It is the fact that religion finds that a virtue that leaves religion itself open to criticism.

It seems Kevn's definition of truth is some relativistic nonense.

One more thing, Kevin.

The legal precedent for giving sole custody of kids normally favour mothers if both the parents earn a regular income.

Only religioous reasons can dictate otherwise.

I prefer that the Church stop trying to convert people when they are young. People should be allowed the space to connect on their religion on their own terms.

My parents are devout Buddhist but they don't forced me to follow their religions and I don't. I respect them for that and I am an atheist who does not drink, gamble or have casual sex.

My friend has often made fun of the fact that I'm the most religious atheist they ever know when it comes to values and principles.

My point is simple. It is possible to be a person of morals and principles without religion. To imply that atheists has no morals and thus unfit for parenthood is simply a lie sold by Christian fundamentalists.

... knowing of Kevin's practice of avoiding definitions and then redefining things to support his argument... Would you like to cite specific examples of my aversion to definitions or predilection to redefinitions, or is this just your way of trying to draw attention away from the real issue? I suppose I could begin my counter with, '...knowing of Norm's practice of fondling rodents inappropriately and then prank-calling nursing homes...' but that would have as little relevance as your little rant.

Are you fucking kidding me, saying that any political movement no matter how little or how much evidence it provides to support its view is the same. A notion that is absurd on the face of it.

It sure is, except I never said that: 'Liberalism...is a subjective choice to declare one set of values more important than another. Or are you claiming that liberalism is somehow intrinsically scientific, and conservatism not?'

I said nothing about different views being 'the same'. I said that liberalism was subjective. You also didn't answer my question ('...knowing of Norm's practice of ignoring questions which would harm his viewpoint...'). Would you please provide the scientific definitions and tests of liberalism and conservatism (since I apparently like to avoid definitions) and then provide me the formulaic proof that shows liberalism to be true?

Providing you didn't come up with a mathematical proof that shows 'Liberalism = true', I am not 'fucking kidding you'. You tried to argue that my analogy was lacking, because I compared a religious reason for making a shitty decision with a philosophical/political reason for making a shitty decision. I'm saying if you actually believe that, then you are truly blinded by your overwhelming disdain for religion and everyone who doesn't agree with you on that point.

Suppose a liberal judge gave custody of a child to a homeless, drug-addicted immigrant father instead of a clean, working white mother, because he wanted to...I don't know, 'counter a system that systematically favors Anglo-Europeans while discriminating against immigrants?'

And then, what if Ann Coulter went on Fox and said this was 'just one more example of the harm liberalism does on a daily basis.'?

You'd probably be embarrassed to have an idiot judge claiming that liberal views justified such a stupid decision, and you'd be pissed at Ann Coulter for implying that this guy spoke for all liberals, and that his view was indicative of liberalism as a whole.

But you have no problem leveling a similar claim against religion as a whole, based on the actions of one idiot judge, who certainly does not speak for all religions or religious people.

A judge like that should be removed from the bench. It's just one more example of the harm religion does on a daily basis.

Those are your words, which I took issue with. You start by taking issue with the judge, and then go after religion as a whole. Well is it the judge that's the problem, or religion? Do you mean to say that if there was no religion, an idiot judge like this wouldn't still be an idiot? That he wouldn't have the same opportunity to make a shitty decision because he's a Republican, or conservative, or nihilist, or something else?

Personally, I think it's just one more example of the harm judges do on a daily basis.

My point is simple. It is possible to be a person of morals and principles without religion. To imply that atheists has no morals and thus unfit for parenthood is simply a lie sold by Christian fundamentalists.

I couldn't agree with you more. I have no idea why anything I've written would give you the impression that I believed otherwise.

My only issue was with Norm's statement that the actions of this judge (which I agree appear ludicrous) were 'an example of the harm religion does on a daily basis', as opposed to the harm idotic people do in the name of religion on a daily basis.

No need to point to any past examples Kevin you've done the same thing here. FAITH BASED = important part of religion. The judge made his decision not using reason but having faith (belief without evidence) that non-religious were somehow flawed and unfit for raising children. Certainly others engage in idiotic harmful behavior but not because of the non-thinking called faith, usually some other sort of flawed reason. I've explained it a couple of times now and it seems everyone gets the point, but you.

The judge made his decision not using reason but having faith (belief without evidence) that non-religious were somehow flawed and unfit for raising children. Certainly others engage in idiotic harmful behavior but not because of the non-thinking called faith, usually some other sort of flawed reason.

So, when an atheist is an idiot, he's just an idiot. But when someone religious is an idiot, religion is fundamental to the problem. Truly, you have caught me in the crushing grip of reason.

So, could you just explain to me again how liberalism is different? Because you can scientifically prove it, right? Because, it's not a matter of one persons belief (read: faith) that certain liberal values are more important than conservative values. I mean, you don't believe being liberal is better than being conservative (like I do) - you actually know it scientifically, right?

I've explained it a couple of times now and it seems everyone gets the point, but you.

Actually, since atheists are by far the minority in the world, 'everyone' doesn't get it but me. And given that the coverage & opinions on this seem to all suggest the judge was out of line, apparently a bunch of other people's religion doesn't support the judge's viewpoint.

But that's OK. Judges like this aren't the problem. People like Bush and Pat Robertson aren't the problem. Religion's the problem! Not how how people apply it, or how much faith they put in it. Just that it exists. Yeah, that makes total, rational, logical sense.

Uh oh, I think I got some on me.

Thanks for the reply, Kevin.

I responded to your post as it certainly does sound like irrational and unlogical sense to me. No offense intended.

I totally disagree when you said that religion payed no role in the judges' decision. That is not true in this case.

Your following example is also irelevant and attacks the very point you raised about the judge:

"Suppose a liberal judge gave custody of a child to a homeless, drug-addicted immigrant father instead of a clean, working white mother, because he wanted to...I don't know, 'counter a system that systematically favors Anglo-Europeans while discriminating against immigrants?"

Kindly note that you were the one who originally told me that the Judge's religious beliefs had nothing to do with his decision. Now you say giving an example of a liberal judge making a decision based on his liberal leanings?

You are clearly slapping yourself in the face.

A truly liberal judge i.e. free from all precon-ceptions or biases will simply keep the status quo as there is no reason why the parents should not have continued joint custody for their kid as they have for the last few years. There were no reasons for such a drastic change beyong the religious-tainted one that the judge gave.

Kindly read the end of the article that the judge has recused himself from the further court proceedings. If his religious beliefs did not affect his ruling, why would he need to remove himself from further legal proceedings? You only recuse yourself if there is a possible conflict of interests i.e. the judge's religious beliefs verses the religious or non-religious inclinations of the mother in question.

I have never heard of anything as absurd as advocating to deprive a child of his mother, even if the mother is not a Christian.

Kevin you may be getting closer. Believing things based not a reason but on faith (belief without evidence) is a central tenet of religion. It is integral to religion. Religion is unique in that sense. It is not a principle of Liberalism or Conservatism for that matter that you accept things without evidence or reasons. Do I know scientifically that Liberalism is better than conservatism. I have reasons for thinking it is based on some evidence yes, but that misses the point. When we discuss which philosophy is more correct we point to evidence to support our views we may be right or wrong, our reasoning may be flawed, someone may point out a factor we missed and the discussion continues and we move closer to the truth of the matter. In religion one believes because they believe, no evidence offered. In fact it is considered a good thing when one believes without evidence. It is a valued principle of religion it is central to what it means to be religious. Try this, it is not religion but a tenet of religion called faith (belief without evidence). Now here is the question is it still religion if you remove the faith-based component. I would argue that it is not.

I totally disagree when you said that religion payed no role in the judges' decision. That is not true in this case.

Kindly note that you were the one who originally told me that the Judge's religious beliefs had nothing to do with his decision.

Are you reading the same things I'm writing? Because I just re-read every one of my posts and I can't find where I said anything remotely like either of those statements.

Obviously his decision was influenced by his religion. Hence the reason I used an analogy of the bad liberal judge making a decision influenced by his liberalism.

My point was (and continues to be) that the judge and his decision are at fault here, not religion as a whole. Just as I wouldn't try to condemn liberalism based on a bad decision by a liberal judge.

Taking an incident like this one, and using it to make a sweeping generalization about something like religion is pathetic. Just like it's pathetic when people on the right use a single incident to try to portray all liberals as anti-american.

That the discussion has even gone on this long astounds me (aside from all the misreading & misquoting going on).

It's just one more example of the harm religion does on a daily basis.

That anyone would try to defend that statement as unbiased or objective, given it's explicit reference to this extremely unusual (and therefore newsworthy) ruling only goes to show that the right doesn't have a monopoly on being rigidly closed-minded.

Believing things based not a reason but on faith (belief without evidence) is a central tenet of religion. It is integral to religion. Religion is unique in that sense. It is not a principle of Liberalism or Conservatism for that matter that you accept things without evidence or reasons. Do I know scientifically that Liberalism is better than conservatism. I have reasons for thinking it is based on some evidence yes, but that misses the point.

Norm, I appreciate your trying to make your case, but I still think at the end of the day you just have a big set of blinders on when it comes to religion as a whole.

There is evidence in support of a god, both tangible (ancient writings) and philosophical ('How did the universe begin, if it was not created?'). But none of that evidence is remotely conclusive, so when we discuss religion from a scientific standpoint, we do not include it (rightly so).

But you talk about religion as if there is (literally) no basis for it than any random thought that pops into my head (a giant space-jellyfish lives on Neptune and his name is Connor). There is evidence - just not any that can be used to make a strong scientific argument.

You believe liberalism is correct based on some evidence - but not any kind of concrete evidence you can use to make a conclusive scientific argument. Most religious people would (I think) argue that they DO have reasons for what they believe, and why they believe it. You would likely believe that those reasons are faulty, or that their reasoning may be flawed, but again - how is that different from a political philosophy?

The only relevant difference to the discussion (IMHO) is that religion is more transparent in regards to the underlying faith component. The conclusion that liberalism is more 'correct' than conservatism, however, still comes down the the belief/faith that the principles & arguments made by liberalism are more important than those made by conservatism.

And none of the discussion above (engaging though it is) addresses my original issue: To condemn religion (all religion - the entirety of every religious view that exists) based on the actions of a single judge, whose actions aren't explicitly supported by religion, just because he indicates that his religious views informed his decision, is irresponsible. You do not judge a society based on the actions of an individual. Doing so demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice veracity in favor of rhetoric, which is something I despise as it results in distraction from the more pressing issues of importance.

Just to make it clear. I didn't condemn all aspects of all religions. I criticized the practice of deciding issues based on faith (my definition), an essential component of religion. The judge decided the case not on its merits but rather on the fact the person was not religious. Having said that further discussion is useless since Kevin though ne never explicitly says so is using a different definition of faith-based than what I defined. In order to have a rational discussion definitions have to be agreeded upon. Since over several discussions now he has demonstrated either an inability or and unwillingess to do that further discussion is pointless.

Just to make it clear. I didn't condemn all aspects of all religions. I criticized the practice of deciding issues based on faith (my definition), an essential component of religion. The judge decided the case not on its merits but rather on the fact the person was not religious.

With all due respect (and just to make it clear), that's not what you said. If that's what you meant, then you could have responded to my original point by just saying the above and we wouldn't have been going around for so long. You said: "It's just one more example of the harm religion does on a daily basis."

Now you claim you were really criticizing a particular practice of decision making (one not practiced by every religious person) and the judge who practiced it. My original (short) comment was that you should focus your anger & frustration on the judge and what he did, not religion as a whole, which sounds a lot like where you've now arrived.

Having said that further discussion is useless since Kevin though ne never explicitly says so is using a different definition of faith-based than what I defined.

Though we may have some cryptic difference of opinion over the definition of the word 'faith' or 'faith-based' (I'm not actually sure, because you keep making accusations without any supporting evidence), that question was completely tangential to my original point. Your statement blasted religion as a whole, based on the actions of this judge, which was far beyond what was reasonable given the facts. That was all I said.

If further discussion is pointless, it is only because you seem to keep avoiding that central point, and instead trying to shift the focus to various fuzzy debates regarding intrinsic differences between faith as it pertains to god, people, or philosophy (and then claiming without proof that I'm somehow 'switching definitions' on you). At the same time, you've failed to respond to a single one of the scientific proof related questions I've asked.

Hi Kevin, I think you have to read my posting more clearly with regard to your statement:

"Obviously his decision was influenced by his religion. Hence the reason I used an analogy of the bad liberal judge making a decision influenced by his liberalism."

Here you are equatign religion or religious beliefs to be the same as liberalism. That's a wrong case to make as they are 2 different things.

A liberal judge will most likely not make any decision based on any religious extremes as you claimed in one of your posting:

"Suppose a liberal judge gave custody of a child to a homeless, drug-addicted immigrant father instead of a clean, working white mother, because he wanted to...I don't know, 'counter a system that systematically favors Anglo-Europeans while discriminating against immigrants?""

Check a dictionary. Liberal means openess in thought and behavior.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

My point is that you made a bad case by comparing a liberal judge to a religious-minded judge.

And you gave a wrong example of the behavior of a liberal judge.

I hope you get my point this time. No offense intended.

Here you are equatign religion or religious beliefs to be the same as liberalism. That's a wrong case to make as they are 2 different things. Both are beliefs that have the ability to influence a persons decision-making process. For the purpose of the analogy, that's all they need in common. I'm well aware that liberalism is not a religion.

Check a dictionary. Liberal means openess in thought and behavior. I'm aware of that too. But are you saying that a jude who claimed to be liberal could under no circumstances make a ruling like the one I suggested?

You appear to be arguing that a judge who made a ruling like the one I suggested wouldn't truly be embodying liberalism. Just as many Christians would argue that the judge in this case wasn't truly embodying Christianity.

My point was and continues to be that it is ludicrous to judge all of religion by the actions of this judge.

To blame religion for his actions, when his actions are not endorsed by any specific tenant of religion, is bad logic. Just as it would be bad logic to judge liberalism based on the actions of my fictitious judge, whose actions wouldn't be endorsed by any specific tenant of liberalism.

I don't know how much more clearly I can make that point.

kelvin, you are still missing my point.

I have never made a sweeping statement that religious judges make judgements based on their religion.

I only pointed that this Judge did or he would have have asked to recuse himself from further court proceedings. That oalready says he has a conflict of interests or bias in his previous. judgement.

You are the one who tried to make a sweeping statement of how a liberal judge will pass judegement.

Your example is dead wrong and should not even be raised if you are aware of the meaning of the word "liberal" as you claim.

The dictionary meaning clearly says that the word has nothing to do with beliefs. It is about an open and tolerant mindset. Hence your example will not occur as a liberal judge will at least make an effort to weigh both sides of the story before making any decision.

This is unlike a religious-minded judge whose beliefs can swap his judgement. There is a definite possibility or the conservatives would not have pushed so hard for the appointment of Supreme Justices whose religious leanings are predisposed to anti-abortion rights.

kestrel,

Please read my comments more carefully, as if I'm going to respond to something, I'd prefer it be in the form of something other than just having to repeat "I didn't say that" over and over.

I have never made a sweeping statement that religious judges make judgements based on their religion. I never said you did. My comment that started this whole thing was in response to Norm saying, "It's just one more example of the harm religion does on a daily basis", and then in response to others trying to justify that statement.

You are the one who tried to make a sweeping statement of how a liberal judge will pass judegement. No, I didn't suggest anything remotely like that. I made an analogy about a fictitious edge-case situation, and how I thought people would respond.

Your example is dead wrong and should not even be raised if you are aware of the meaning of the word "liberal" as you claim. Did you note the part of the dictionary definition that said: "(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform"?

Perhaps I was assuming too much in that I assumed anyone reading my statement would comprehend that my use of the word 'liberal' was in a political context, as is almost universally the case with the term: 'liberal judge'.

In the political case, there are certainly beliefs traditionally associated with being politically 'liberal' (i.e. Environmentalism). I sincerely apologize if you were unable to understand my context. If you did understand my context, and you're trying to argue that there is no such thing as a liberal political belief, then you are delusional.

This is unlike a religious-minded judge whose beliefs can swap his judgement. So, again, let's get the context straight. Are you saying that a liberal-minded judge by definition has no beliefs which influence his judgement? It almost sounds like you are trying to argue that all 'liberal' judges are by definition completely objective, and all non-liberal judges are by definition not. Again, assuming that we're using the word 'liberal' in the common political context, if that's what you're trying to say, then we need a new word for all the people who identify themselves as liberal (but really aren't according to you), and (because we might as well), different words to describe the people who are religious (and actually embody the positive aspects of their faith) versus the ones who identify themselves as religious (but really don't according to you).

kestrel,

Please read my comments more carefully, as if I'm going to respond to something, I'd prefer it be in the form of something other than just having to repeat "I didn't say that" over and over.

I have never made a sweeping statement that religious judges make judgements based on their religion. I never said you did. My comment that started this whole thing was in response to Norm saying, "It's just one more example of the harm religion does on a daily basis", and then in response to others trying to justify that statement.

You are the one who tried to make a sweeping statement of how a liberal judge will pass judegement. No, I didn't suggest anything remotely like that. I made an analogy about a fictitious edge-case situation, and how I thought people would respond.

Your example is dead wrong and should not even be raised if you are aware of the meaning of the word "liberal" as you claim. Did you note the part of the dictionary definition that said: "(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform"?

Perhaps I was assuming too much in that I assumed anyone reading my statement would comprehend that my use of the word 'liberal' was in a political context, as is almost universally the case with the term: 'liberal judge'.

In the political case, there are certainly beliefs traditionally associated with being politically 'liberal' (i.e. Environmentalism). I sincerely apologize if you were unable to understand my context. If you did understand my context, and you're trying to argue that there is no such thing as a liberal political belief, then you are delusional.

This is unlike a religious-minded judge whose beliefs can swap his judgement. So, again, let's get the context straight. Are you saying that a liberal-minded judge by definition has no beliefs which influence his judgement? It almost sounds like you are trying to argue that all 'liberal' judges are by definition completely objective, and all non-liberal judges are by definition not. Again, assuming that we're using the word 'liberal' in the common political context, if that's what you're trying to say, then we need a new word for all the people who identify themselves as liberal (but really aren't according to you), and (because we might as well), different words to describe the people who are religious (and actually embody the positive aspects of their faith) versus the ones who identify themselves as religious (but really don't according to you).

Kevin, thanks for the reply.

I think I have made my point that a truly liberal judge will not pass judgement in the way you suggests.

Liberal means open and tolerant. Most of all, being liberal involvess being able to see reason.

That's all I want to say on this subject. I don't want to get sidetracked further.

Okay. I'm not sure what that point was, as I never said that a 'truly liberal judge' would do what you were concerned about.

You appear to be focusing on the conceptual definition of the word liberal, as opposed to the usage I specified (a political position) for what was only a hypothetical situation to begin with.

Hi Kevin, I think I made it clear what liberal means.

Your example of how a liberal judge may act is clearly inaccurate based on a factual definition of iberal.

L:iberal means open and openess to reason is part of it.

Your attemtp to establish a similarity between a liberal judge and a religious-minded judge does not succeed if you have to distort the basic meaning of "liberal".

As I said, I have made my point very clearly.

You keep trying to make a point regarding the perfect raw meaning of the word 'liberal', and I keep saying that I'm using the word in a political context. I've already acknowledged that (using your definition of the word) someone wouldn't act the way I suggested in my fictional scenario.

That said, there are millions of people in this country who describe themselves as (politically) 'liberal'. Do you believe that none of them ever act in a less-than open and reasonable way?

If you're arguing that they (in that case) are not truly liberal, then please pick a new word to describe the liberal political philosophy, as opposed to the perfect liberal ideal, and substitute that word in my fictional scenario.

Hi Kevin, I am merely pointing out the real meaning of the word "liberal" and that a liberal juddge by that definition won't do as you claim in your fictional scenario. A non-liberal judge may well do what you suggests. That's all I'm saying here.

From what I know, the only politicsed meaning for the word liberal come from right wing conservatives i.e. "effeminate, flip floppers, gay lovers."

As that's their attmept at stereotyping, such political catchphrases have not made it to any dictionary meaning for the word "liberal".

Just like streotypes for right wings such as rednecks, Christian fanatics, warmongers have not made it to the definition of the word "Conservative" or "Republican"...

... yet.

You need a new dictionary. It has a common political context:

liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl| adjective 1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people. • favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms: liberal citizenship laws. • (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state.

Like I said, substitute whatever word you want. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this. The only important point in my analogy was that the judge would identify himself as liberal. If you want to use another word, go for it.

Which dictionary did you use?

Oxford and Dictionary.com says otherwse.

In case case, your new meaning for liberal still does not support the fallacious example of a liberal judge that you gave.

Btw, it is a sweeping statement to say that a liberal is willing to discard traditional values.

As I have said earlier, I don't game, don't drink and don't engage in casual sex. How many traditional people can say the same?

A traditional Asian stresses on filial piety and many of us brings our parents to live with us at our own home?

Do tradition-minded American do the same? Or do they take the first chance they can get to find their own place and leave their parents somewhere else.

To Asians, we would see that as very liberal : >

Which dictionary did you use? Oxford American Dictionary

But both Oxford (askoxford.com) and Dictionary.com cover this as well:

Dictionary.com: 1d Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

n. A member of a Liberal political party.

Dictionary.com: 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform.

My example stands fine, just as it did the first time. You want to go off on a tangent about the definition of the word 'liberal'. As I've said, the only critical part of my analogy is that the judge identified himself as liberal, or was labeled as such by others.

If you want to say that my fictitious judge isn't truly liberal, fine (that was kind of my point). A lot of people would likely say that the judge in this case wasn't acting as a true Christian, which again, only proves my point.

You appear to be (either intentionally or not) misinterpreting what I've said at every turn. My choice of 'liberal' was in no way essential to my point, which was that it was unfair to judge all Christians based on the actions of a single judge (who was acting in a very un-Christian-like fashion). If you don't like my analogy, please ignore it and comment on the above point instead.

Kevin, no worries. I'm the type that questions everything. I always go for the premise first before going into the discussion. Pardon for that.

It's just a knee jerk reaction to the way Karl Rove and crew define premises for their arguments that are too slanted to thier view of reality.

However I used the first meaning from the 2 sources I quote because those definitions don't apply universally.

Perhaps your example may work go better with the word "Libertarian"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Sorry, spotted a typo:

However I used the first meaning from the 2 sources I quote because the other definitions don't apply universally. Certainly not in Asia. We even have ruling parties calling themselves a Liberal party when they rule like Republicans.

Kevin, I have been following this debate you are having with Kes, and I have resisted jumping in since you and I had debated this recently. After giving a lot of thought to all of this, I have decided that it is not really worth debating anymore. Besides this one issue, I think that I would agree with you on most other important issues. From your other posts you come across as decent human being with a good heart. Your belief in God is of no importance to me. I just wish that there were not so many other people who take the holy books and use them as a reason to hurt other people instead of using them to promote love and peace.

Jo Ann,

Thanks. I'd submit that I'm not as unique as you might think. Just as in politics (and atheist politics: the War On Easter), a minority of people with extreme views often wind up appointing themselves 'unofficial spokesmen' for their cause. If anything, I'm just trying to remind people that Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all people of faith, just as Brian Flemming doesn't speak for all atheists. When all we can see are those types of people amongst our opponents, it reenforces an 'us or them' mentality that ultimately does more harm than good (in my opinion).