Khashoggi

[JimL]

70% of Australians are religious. I think you are jumping the gun.

Most christians are christians in name only anyway, they either don't know or don't believe in many of the essential doctrines thereof. So percentages claiming christianity means nothing. I grew up believing I was a christian as well, until one day I decided to sit down and read the Bible.

[Tassman]

70% of Australians are religious. I think you are jumping the gun.

“The growing percentage of Australia’s population reporting no religion has been a trend for decades, and is accelerating. 2016 Census data reveals “no religion” is rising fast...with Christianity remaining the most common religion (52 per cent of the population).”

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]

What people may write on the Census Form is not borne out by regular church attendance...churches are virtually empty on Sundays and many are being sold off.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...30f0097eae8cd0

[firstfloor]

That's nice. Erdogan is such a nice man.

And the Mike Flynn kidnapping for money plot?? Just when you think the Trump administration has reached bottom, it goes even lower.

[Cow Poke]

And the Mike Flynn kidnapping for money plot?? Just when you think the Trump administration has reached bottom, it goes even lower.

I had nothing to do with that!

[One Bad Pig]

I hear today that Trump wants to find a way to give US based cleric Fethullah Gulen to Erdogan so that Erdogan will stop banging on about Khashoggi and embarrassing the murderous MbS. This is how tyrants cooperate.

I hadn't heard about this, but a nice big headline on Yahoo this morning was about Trump saying that Gulen's return was off the table.

[firstfloor]

I hadn't heard about this, but a nice big headline on Yahoo this morning was about Trump saying that Gulen's return was off the table.

It was NBC News on Thursday. I see that CP’s denying involvement, like Trump!

[Cow Poke]

It was NBC News on Thursday. I see that CP’s denying involvement, like Trump!

CP can righteously deny involvement because... well... he wasn't involved.

[One Bad Pig]

It was NBC News on Thursday. I see that CP’s denying involvement, like Trump!

Thanks for providing your source.

[Sparko]

“The growing percentage of Australia’s population reporting no religion has been a trend for decades, and is accelerating. 2016 Census data reveals “no religion” is rising fast...with Christianity remaining the most common religion (52 per cent of the population).”

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]

What people may write on the Census Form is not borne out by regular church attendance...churches are virtually empty on Sundays and many are being sold off.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...30f0097eae8cd0

Still, 70% claiming to be religious is nothing close to being "irrelevant" as you claimed.

[JimL]

Still, 70% claiming to be religious is nothing close to being "irrelevant" as you claimed.

Uh it's kind of irrelevant, being that most christians are christian in name only and if you ask they either don't know, or don't believe, half of what's in the bible.

[Sparko]

Uh it's kind of irrelevant, being that most christians are christian in name only and if you ask they either don't know, or don't believe, half of what's in the bible.

How would you know? Did you interview everyone in Australia?

The way the survey was worded it asked if they were religious or not. Not if they were Christian or not. 70% said they were religious. Which means they believe in God, whether they go to church or not. 50+% identified as Christian. There are other religions than Christianity. Tassy was claiming that religion is irrelevant in Australia. 70% says he is wrong.

[firstfloor]

You will hear it said that he is innocent until proven guilty but if that person is actually guilty then it is not true that he is innocent unless proven otherwise. What is really meant is that during a trial, the burden of proof in on the prosecution and not on the accused to prove his innocence. There is no presumption of innocence before a trial because no one then would be indicted.

[Cow Poke]

You will hear it said that he is innocent until proven guilty but if that person is actually guilty then it is not true that he is innocent unless proven otherwise.

But you don't know that he's guilty until there's a trial. You're getting the apples before the oranges.

What is really meant is that during a trial, the burden of proof in on the prosecution and not on the accused to prove his innocence.

Ya got THAT part right!

There is no presumption of innocence before a trial because no one then would be indicted.

No, that's not true -- there has to be a foundation for the accusation, commonly referred to as "probable cause". The person is not arrested because he is guilty - he's arrested because it is SUSPECTED that he is guilty.

[firstfloor]

But you don't know that he's guilty until there's a trial. You're getting the apples before the oranges.

I don’t think guilt has anything to do with knowledge of guilt. It just means that a person has performed some action or caused an event that is a criminal offence. Ignorance of the law and the absence of witnesses makes no difference.

No, that's not true -- there has to be a foundation for the accusation, commonly referred to as "probable cause". The person is not arrested because he is guilty - he's arrested because it is SUSPECTED that he is guilty.

If there is a foundation for an accusation then the person is not presumed to be innocent. He might be innocent but he does not get to trial unless there is evidence against him.

Notice how I don’t glare back.

[Cow Poke]

I don’t think guilt has anything to do with knowledge of guilt.

Knowledge of guilt by whom? The actor? His legal representative? The constabulary? And there's the fact that a man can look awfully guilty, and in fact be innocent.

It just means that a person has performed some action or caused an event that is a criminal offence.

Absolutely wrong. It just means that a person APPEARS to have performed some action that MAY BE a criminal offense. It is PROBABLE CAUSE, not ABSOLUTLEY CAUSED.

Ignorance of the law and the absence of witnesses makes no difference.

Ya finally got something right, with regard to conviction.

If there is a foundation for an accusation then the person is not presumed to be innocent.

Wow - I'm sure glad you're not a judge! Many times the "foundation" for the accusation has been found to be false, or supposed, or imagined, or even "planted".

He might be innocent but he does not get to trial unless there is evidence against him.

And, again, THAT part is true.

Notice how I don’t glare back.

That part actually made me laugh.