Summations Only

Hi Faith, I asked you elsewhere if you thought Jesus would own a gun but you declined to answer.I'm just wondering now if you think Jesus would be in favour of sharing wealth equally amongst people or in favour of wealth and opportunity being concentrated with a few?

Funny how proof/evidence is sometimes important to you and sometimes/mostly not.However, i can't speak for your police forces, but others - including Australia and the UK - have been found to be institutionally racist several times. This has been accepted by the forces themselves. EgLawrence revelations: admit institutional racism, Met chief told | Metropolitan police | The GuardianI find it hard to believe that your forces are exempt from this kind of thing given what I'm reading.

There is nothing in that link that talks about the case you're discussing. My point was that several police forces in modern democracies have been found to be - and they have accepted it themselves - institutionally racist. I don't see why the US should be exempt from this, given what has been in the media about recent events in the US. Bloody hell - you never cease to amaze.Do you now deny saying that 'when the evidence points to the bible being wrong, then the evidence is wrong' or words to that effect? ie that no evidence can prove the bible wrong.

If no evidence can contradict that which is claimed in the bible, you are rejecting evidence for no other reason than it contradicts something in the bible. You are therefore rejecting evidence without reasonable cause. What nonsense, if the institutiona accused of racism, pleads guilty to the charge, it's real. This is a non sequitur - but I agree with it.

God now is it? The claim was that you reject evidence that contradicts what is written in the bible only because it is written in the bible. Do you notice the tautology?You proclaim the bible as the final truth without evidence, then refuse evidence that shows it to be in error, redardless of the strength of that evidence.Something that is irrefutable by a proclamation alone is not subject to reasonable, rational discussion and challenge. As you demonstrate daily.

I was listening to this man on the radio last week - an amazing black, American lawyer: One statistic stuck in my head. In this generation a black man in the USA has a 33% chance of finding himself in prison.

His argument would be that all those things are interelated and most have race at the bottom of them. No problem with that as an ideal, but it's hard to avoid a preliminary conclusion that race is a prime indicator.

I was wondering whether anyone would bring up the Hinton story. This black guy was convicted of murder and spent 30 years on death row and has been now found to be innocent. There's some very shocking things about the case - like the authorities knew that the bullets fired were not a match to the gun he was supposed to have shot with for 19 years but did not act on it. That despite it was the key evidence in the case and it was shown by independent ballistics experts. He believes that he was convicted simply because he was black and he appears to have a point.Anthony Ray Hinton blames racism for wrongful jailing - BBC NewsBut my main reason for bringing this up is to point to the lawyer that successfully faught this case - another black guy called Bryan Stevenson. He's an amazing guy doing work with people on death row and attempting - and succeeding - in changing some of the most iniquitous practices around the area. He says that there have been over 150 people exonerated after being sentenced to death and that a black man born in the USA this millenium has a 33% chance of being imprisoned.He's an amazing bloke and did a TED talk a while back. I challenge anybody not to be moved by what he says:Bryan Stevenson: We need to talk about an injustice | TED Talk

deletedEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yup.