The Russian Orthodox Church is basically a propaganda arm of the Russian government. The army has its own personal cathedral and Patriarch Kirill ("former" KGB asset, by the way) describes the invasion of Ukraine as a holy war.
Judge Christy Craig ruled that Ayala was incompetent and he is being sent to Lake's Crossing Center, a maximum security psychiatric facility located in Sparks.
Some people are simply too dangerous to be left in society, but unable to stand trial. That's why we have solutions like this.
We're naturally inquisitive creatures, though. That's how we got here, by asking questions that matter to us. Why should we handwave away the most important question of all time? Would you be satisfied if the answer to every important scientific and philosophical question was "It doesn't matter, don't worry about it"?
Morality is not at all self-evident. "Basic empathy" is such a vague concept that it can be turned in any number of ways. Is it more empathetic to force someone to be born against their will and persist in this world full of suffering, or to kill them before they're born so they never have to suffer? Ask a hundred people a list of everything "basic empathy" covers, and you'd get a hundred different answers. As for the religious caricatures you mention, of the hundreds of religious people I know, none of them "want to do a bunch of heinous things were it not for the idea of hell." They want to do good things, instead, out of love for the Lord who created them. Based on articles like the one above, though, people refusing to believe that morality is imposed makes them come off as wanting to do whatever they want and then retroactively rewrite their morality to make it seem like they're doing good things. Look at any 20th-century dictatorship and you'll see what I mean.
First, people doing wrong punish themselves in the act. Those acts are toxic to the soul. God barely needs to lift a finger there. Second, what would you rather have happen: people get punished for doing wrong, or not? If the first, you need free choice; if the second, then you either have slavery or no justice at all.
There is artistic freedom, but the fact remains that there are moral rights and wrongs. Simply because I can imagine something doesn't mean it's possible, you only need to look at the Penrose stairs to know this. Not even God can do logically impossible things, like making square circles.
God is the only sensible explanation of the creation of the universe and morality. Without him, nothing makes sense at all.
Sure. If God made us so we could never do anything wrong, we would be lower than slaves - we'd be programmed robots. It seems that God would rather have people who are able to choose to do good or wrong rather than be forced to do only good. Would you rather be free to choose to do right - be free - or would you rather be unable to do anything wrong ever - be a slave/robot?
I especially like that, despite the fact that you’re the supposed hero, every shot of your hand shows what appears to be a scaly monster’s hand. It makes you wonder who - or what - you really are…
Technically the "give something up for Lent" thing isn't a requirement. It's encouraged, as long as it's actually leading you to be a better Christian, but it isn't needed. The only requirements, in the US, are:
On Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, you fast from food. The minimum that counts is, basically, one meal and two snacks.
On every Friday of Lent and also Ash Wednesday, you abstain from eating the meat of land-dwelling animals. In the US, the bishops have said it's alright to substitute this penance with something else for the rest of the year; but during Lent, it's a requirement.
No, I just don't find much point in the "no human is illegal" thing. Nobody is saying that being a human is illegal, or that they are innately illegal. But people can be criminals. Do you prefer the term "criminal foreigner" rather than "illegal foreigner"?
Lobotomies are no longer practiced, and I am extremely thankful for that. I'd rather be in a mental hospital today than 50 years ago. 100 years ago, I'd probably be dead.
Technically, nothing. In the same way that "person who committed thievery" is a correct term for "thief." People may not be illegal, but we call them criminals all the time.
I have schizophrenia. It's a touchy subject, but I agree. Some of us just can't help ourselves.
A major problem is availability of care. It's common for people to have to wait months to see a psychiatrist here in the US, and it's a problem in other areas too. There just aren't enough psychiatrists to go around. But schizophrenia is the kind of illness that demands immediate treatment. It's dangerous not primarily because its subjects are violent, but because it just takes, and takes, and takes, everything it can from someone's mind until they can basically do nothing.
Medication helps, it absolutely does. But many of us refuse to take it, because of the side effects - they can make us drowsy, lethargic, dizzy, even suicidal. I once took Risperidone and it made me so unsteady on my feet that I had to walk with a cane, in my early 20s. For many the choice of whether to take meds is extremely difficult for these reasons. Not to mention the fact that many will think they're cured after taking antipsychotics for a while, stop taking them, and end up in bad situations because the illness wasn't actually cured.
It doesn't help that mental hospitals have a terrible reputation in our community. Many are scared to go to the emergency room because they think that they'll simply be drugged up by a careless doctor who isn't interested in what his "insane" patients have to say about their treatment. In some places, this is true, and that's the worst part. Nobody should have to be treated this way.
Many of us can function without living in a hospital forever. I am one such individual - I hold a good job and live on my own - and I know plenty of other people who can do the same. Some people can't, though, and that's okay. We shouldn't count all people with schizophrenia as demons to be purged, but we also shouldn't lie and say we're all perfectly independent people. We all need help, some more than others.
From what I understand, those who research religion prefer the term "high-control group" to describe what are colloquially known as "cults." That's partly due to people calling anything they don't like a cult.
Picture two Christian denominations. One only asks its members to show up to church when they like, donate to keep the place running, and express Christ's love to each other in whatever way they see fit without placing unnecessary burdens on them. The other demands, under pain of exile, that all members spend 40 hours per month on door-to-door evangelization regardless of social disposition, only receive theology that is dictated by one specific organization, tithe 20% of their income to that organization, only allows members to be friends with others in that particular denomination, and does not allow them to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, use any "hard" drugs, get tattoos, or receive blood transfusions.
Most people would probably agree that the second denomination is a cult/high-control group, but using that descriptor for the first denomination would dilute the term so much that it would basically become meaningless.
The Russian Orthodox Church is basically a propaganda arm of the Russian government. The army has its own personal cathedral and Patriarch Kirill ("former" KGB asset, by the way) describes the invasion of Ukraine as a holy war.