She should be fired
Immediately. Judges should be impartial.
They should also not be suffering from extreme mental illness, like she is.
The fact that this person is an ICJ judge shows you that we are living in a clown world. Our entire civilization has no clothes. We are talking chimps conducting a reckless, unplanned terraform of spaceship Earth. Our intelligence is no match for our hubris. If you haven’t figured it out yet, we are approaching our great filter and the perpetrator is ourselves.
As she said, we are approaching the “end times”, except what comes after is the eternal nothingness of the void; the only remanence being another dead rock hurtling through space.
Out of a cannon. Into the sun.
Oh good, another accelerationist in power who thinks they’re the catalyst for the rapture.
The thing that confounds me the most is that these people have been rejecting our experienced reality and believing in some post-apocalyptic utopia for CENTURIES. But belief upon belief, attempt after attempt, they have only shown that their belief-system has no foundation or champion whose power they can invoke. But, instead of saying “we have the resources to make utopia exist here and now,” they say, “we must not have pleased our friend who hasn’t shown his face in MILLENNIA. But I know for a fact that he’s real, so we just gotta cause a biblical apocalypse for all the chess pieces we feed and employ.”
I am religious. I find the idea of purposefully bringing on the end of times strongly contradictory to my understanding of the Abrahamic religions. It is not the place of humans to decide, when the end times come, nor do humans have the power to do so. And the idea that purposefully bringing on the end of the world would be rewarded, instead of punished, by God is incomprehensible to me.
There is a narration both in Judaism and Islam, that emphasizes this:
“If the [Day of] Resurrection were established upon one of you, and in his hand is a sapling, then he should plant it.”
عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِنْ قَامَتْ عَلَى أَحَدِكُمْ الْقِيَامَةُ وَفِي يَدِهِ فَسْلَةٌ فَلْيَغْرِسْهَا[1][2]“If you are holding a sapling in your hand and someone tells you, ‘Come quickly, the Messiah is here!’, first finish planting the tree and then go to greet the Messiah.” – Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (30 BC – 90 CE),
I’m reminded of the quote by Heraclitus: “Though reason is common, most people live as though they had an understanding peculiar to themselves.” Religion is not immune to this, with people often twisting it to suit their own goals.
If it’s not our place to bring on the end times, then it’s also not our place to stand in the way.
That’s the problem. These people are telling themselves “if this is how it happens, who am I to stand in the way?” Think about it: if you see events in motion which could be the stirrings of god bringing about the end times, how could you possibly act in a completely neutral way, neither hastening nor hindering? It’s too fine a line for an humble mortal to assume they can walk.
So while I appreciate your thought, unfortunately your thinking is far too easily flipped around. The base problem is believing any of this stuff to begin with. Once you do, that’s it.
If it were the end of times made by gods, a person shouldn’t have any ability to stop it.
Sounds more like their God is testing them on whether or not they are a good person, and they are failing spectacularly.
Yeah I can’t understand how religious people think about these things. They believe that people can be judged, right? So they must at least be able to make a choice. Maybe they can choose not to help bring about the end times, even if they’re ultimately lack the power to make the difference? Who the fuck knows. This is like debating how magic works.
God commanded us good things to do and prohibited us from doing bad things.
You should just life your life in accordance with that as good as possible and don’t concern yourself with when the end times are, or when your life ends. It is important not to postpone doing good things, or to continue doing bad things thinking “i’ll just make up for them later.” Because God might decide to end your life in an accident or other sudden way.
There is no indication afaik. in any of the Abrahamic scriptures that you should try to fulfill any prophecies and it certainly does not take priorities over doing what is good in on itself and abstaining from what is bad in on itself.
I would have figured they see it as a point system, and if your below X when the end of times occurs, which is inevitable and of course didnt matter for every generation before or after theirs because they were already dead or yet to be born… they tally up their points. If they judged their neighbor -10 points. Drank a beer, -10 points, listened to rock and roll -10 points. Had sex out of wedlock -100 points. Had sex without trying to make a child -100 points. Lusted for / checked out someone, -50. Vanity, Greed… -75 points. Positives, helping others is really the only way I can think of to increase the score. And a lot more people are complaining about people in traffic than helping people cross the street.
Positives, helping others is really the only way I can think of to increase the score
Then you are more evolved than Christians. Unfortunately Christianity is unclear on whether helping people actually matters, or just faith in god. I’m being completely serious.
See: https://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html
Reason #N+1 weird-ass cultists should be disqualified from all leadership positions.
Ass cultists lol
Ass cultists at least make sense.
Judge Julia Sebutinde says signs of the end times ‘are being shown in the Middle East’
Why tf would anyone want to fulfill the prophecy of the antichrist.
“Yeah let’s accelerate this genocide so that the entire world can get screwed over”
Believers of a death cult promising salvation in the afterlife.
How does one know what lord wants?
Easy. It’s the same thing you want. Every time.
INCORRECT!!
Anyways I’m off to the kitchen, the lord has instructed me to have a cookie!!
deleted by creator
Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice.
He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;
–
The Prophet IsaiahClearly Some Hamas Supporter /sPychotic death cult
Deeply religious people should not be judges. Their judgement is inevitably biased. People’s lives should not depend on the religious choices and opinions of people in power.
Would you say the same about women? What about queer people? What about the social class? What about ethnicity? What about deelpy atheist people?
For any group identity you can make such claims of biases. Instead of excluding everyone from becoming judges, because everyone will have some form of bias, we should look by their qualifications and act if they show clear biases making them unfit. In this case the ICJ vice-president showed a clear bias making her unfit. However before making religious claims she already was a mouth-piece for Israel in the court and there is reason to believe her being blackmailed or bribed.
There is a reason why there is so many judges on the ICJ and why most supreme courts have a high number of judges. It is to limit biases going into the decision by having a wide range of people, whose inevitable biases are cancelled out against each other.
Do any of those groups have a shared belief dystem that is inherently unprovable? What do all women believe? What do all queers believe?
I dont want people who believe in a utopian afterlife deciding if I die or not.
Even your atheist argument sucks because their common belief is lack of belief in someone elses shite.
All laws written by humans are a common belief system and “inherently unprovable”. There is no proof why the constitution of the United States would be better or worse than the constitution of France. There is no proof why international law would be right or wrong. Try explaining the Geneva convention to the emperors of the past… All of these are based on shared values and entirely dependent on the human subjects, not some objective fact.
You are constructing a justification for bigotry, by saying that it is acceptable to exclude one group of people based on your generalizations against them. I tried to show you that it is arbitrary as all bigotry is.
Most laws are based in reducing human suffering, including religious text. Don’t use chemical weapons? Yeah, cool. Gurgling on your own intestines sounds like a pretty sweet thing to not have to worry about. Most of the 10 commandments are little more than “don’t be a dick of a human”. But religion has a way of taking it too far and instead start increasing suffering. Waging wars because the land is “rightfully” theirs. Honour killings because they love the wrong person. Enriching themselves at the cost of others, justifying it by saying god is rewarding them for their loyalty.
LGBTQ+, feminism, BLM and so on are there to reduce suffering and grant humans the rights they deserve. If a queer judge is biased towards not making their fellow queer people suffer more, then I don’t see a problem with that. If a judge has a bias towards continuing genocide, then yeah, there’s an issue.
What shite is this, are you comparing a social contract to diefying mythology and imposing your view on others?
This reads like the worst LLM joined a cult.
Being a woman, or a queer person, or ethnicity are not belief systems, they are biological traits. Even financial status is not a belief system. Religion is a belief system by definition. Like politics are. But politics can be studied historically and analised socially and economically, and can be chosen based on data and evidence. Religion is a belief system based on no evidence whatsoever. Religion is akin to superstition: a belief unsupported by evidence. There are thousands of religions in the world, each one believing different things, each one claiming to be The Ultimate Truth and - what’s worse- to be above human laws. Picking one is completely arbitrary (usually determined by upbringing). Judges working under the influence of different religions rule differently on the same topics.
I’ll prove you that qualifications alone are not enough: if I had the appropriate qualifications to become a Supreme Court judge, but I claimed that the Sacred Pink Unicorn, supreme Goddess of Truth, guides my judgment and speaks to me in my dreams and tells me what’s wrong and what’s right, would you consider my impeccable qualifications enough? The only difference between the Sacred Pink Unicorn and any other deity is the number of people believing in it.
A judge who is spiritual may still maintain objectivity, but a judge who is deeply religious cannot be trusted to be objective, in my opinion.
Being a woman, or a queer person, or ethnicity are not belief systems, they are biological traits.
There is many bigots who claim the contrary and there is an entire culture war going on right now on the claim that whether people being openly queer or women doing “manly” things are doing so from an agenda. Making the same claims against religious people or “deeply religious people” is equally wrong. Also “deeply religious” is an arbitrary concept similar to saying someone is “too queer” or that a women would be “too much out of line” or similar nonsense.
Even financial status is not a belief system.
There is a lot of empirical results that show a strong correlation between wealth and ideologies. Also just very basically, judges for the most part come from higher financial classes which limits the life experience they have to understand the situation of poor people. Again the point is to move from the generalization to look at the specific person in question. E.g. a judge that has a track record of decisions favoring wealthy people probably has a problematic bias, but there is judges who do not show such biases.
But politics can be studied historically and analised socially and economically, and can be chosen based on data and evidence.
Economists literally have “schools of thought” that they choose to follow. Those are believe systems. Any good sociologist, ethnologist, historian, anthropologist and other humanities researcher will acknowledge that they are biased and that their analysis and interpretation remain subjective. It is very common to have two diametrically opposed interpretations of the same set of “data and evidence”.
There are thousands of religions in the world, each one believing different things, each one claiming to be The Ultimate Truth and - what’s worse- to be above human laws. Picking one is completely arbitrary (usually determined by upbringing).
That is a very generalized claim that seems to come from a place of anti-religious belief, rather than an empirical analysis. Very basically there is more than 4 billion religious people in the world. If a relevant number of them would believe to be above human laws, society would look very different.
Judges working under the influence of different religions rule differently on the same topics.
So do judges of different gender, ethnicity and other group identities. If you believe that these play no role, then you would see no need for representation in higher courts.
I’ll prove you that qualifications alone are not enough: if I had the appropriate qualifications to become a Supreme Court judge, but I claimed that the Sacred Pink Unicorn,
You are arguing against a straw man here. I said: “we should look by their qualifications and act if they show clear biases making them unfit”
As you make up the straw man as a generalization against religious people as a whole, or your arbitrary category of “deeply religious people”, you are engaging in bigotry as you generalize onto a broad group of people. The same can be seen by the culture warriors attacking women, queers, racialized groups…All of your arguments are subjective and the result of your prejudice against religious people. I think these prejudice are working by the same mechanisms like prejudice against other group identities and i hope that this helps you to question and overcome them.
I suppose she wouldn’t mind going to meet this Lord a little early then? Seriously every single person that espouses something like this, should be immediately expelled from any government position.
I am at the point where if someone is openly religious, I OPENLY avoid them. I don’t want anything to do with these delusional psychopaths.
Judge Sebutinde, your eschatology is bad. But your paterology is even worse. You might be a heretic; whoever taught you this nonsense definitely is.
totally normal
