I think that the judge and jury who sentenced someone to death should be forced to watch too to see the execution (read: state sanctioned murder) they authorized

Will to live

I agree with you, mostly because it seems logical to me, like if you torture a person for years for nonsensical crime like possession, how do you think it’s gonna turn out? Though, I think that much more important is to ensure that they have the ability to put their lives back together after release, since in the modern day, it’s practically impossible for anyone with a record to get a decent job.

I mean, I doubt all prisoners are locked in these prisons. I think these prisons like Halden are rewards to which the best behaving prispners get transported to. Still, the criminal justice system in these countries is awesome.

Mood

Nobody is forcing you to excerise religion. It is your right to dunk on it, to hate it, but you cannot prohibit its exercise. Yes, cultists shoving it down their children’s throats is a problem, but that can be solved with overturning Yoder and focusing in prevention in the education system.

Because we’re fucking weebs…

Time to rewrite the world in assembly

What nations are the ‘ton of countries’?

And what next? Ban political expression in public? Ban protests? Ban unions? Banning free public assembly, including for religious purposes, is a one way ticket towards dictatorship.

Just wait until you hear that the US fully repealed all laws penalizing sodomy (which included homosexual intercourse) between two consenting adults in 2003, when the Supreme Court declared that such laws were unconstitutional under the equal protection clause (Lawrence V Texas).

The progress in that regard was fortunately very quick. In 2009, first states started legalizing gay marriage, in 2013 SCOTUS decided that even gay pairs from states that banned gay marriage can receive benefits if they have a valid marriage license from a states that allowed it (US v Windsor), striking down the shameful Defense of Marriage Act, and in 2015, it was at last decided that the constitution protects gay marriage, making it legal in all states (Oberfeller et al V Hodges). In 2020, in an opinion paradoxically written by Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, the court decided that the protection guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied to LGBTQ folks as well (Bostock V Clayton County).

Being able to publicly express their opinions, even religion, is a human right and fundamental constitutional right in any democracy. Stripping it would strip the country of freedom of speech and democracy as whole.

No, we should built impenetrable wall between the state and religion, but right to believe and exercise religion is a very fundamental and basic human right.

Fellow PHP enjoyer. Splendid.

Eliza from 1960s was made for this.

Then why Trump fears going to court to prove his accusations? He declared them terrorists, so he can pursue deportations under INA, which entitles the deportees to a court hearing, yet he invoked a wartime 1798 law specifically to avoid having to prove his hypothesis.

It’s quite paradoxical; right, an ideology about them-vs-us being such united and left, an ideology (at least theoretically) about camaradery being such divided

There is a difference between god as a character and God as a concept; the former one is (in my belief) nonexistent, the latter exists as long as his worshipper worship him.

Mao, Kim jong un, Stalin…

how funny would it be if the courts struck it down, heh.