Retribution and deterrence are two of the fundamental purposes of criminal law. These two judges have irreparably harmed their victims as well as the justice system itself. They were given positions of public trust and abused their power for monetary benefit at the expense of faith in the judiciary. If ever there were government servants who deserved life in prison for their offenses, it is these two judges.

Yeah, I have noticed this same problem ever since I upgraded to version 3. Too bad I don't know enough to do anything about it. Blocking flash isn't an option for me, I'm addicted to random mindless flash games.

You should probably pack now and get moving, I hear it's kind of a long flight.

Fine. Brush aside that "subjective crap" as though there is some sort of natural law or norm that clearly delineates morality. You know that aside from a number of basic norms (do not "murder" as such is defined, do not "steal", etc.) with obvious social benefits there is no such thing.

And if you are not simply aligned against those who believe in a "god" or faith, I would love to hear your definition of such as opposed to "religion" generally. If you want to define religion as "organized" or a set of beliefs that define other beliefs as inferior, fine, but you made no such indication in your prior post.

Please. Militant atheists are just as self-righteous and obnoxious as militant theists, but they get that added kick of hypocrisy (we want freedom of belief, but not your beliefs!).

If there was no religion, "good" people would continue to do "evil" things for a variety of reasons... land, food, love, regionalism, relative notions of how society should function, etc. We live in a world of scarcity, and in the absence of a universal agreement to divide scarce resources with maximum efficiency, "good" people will continue to commit "evil" acts against others, and some of these "evil" acts will be seen as "good" by a number of similarly situated "good" persons.

Please. It is the Imams and Hamas officials who are in constant need of an enemy, to distract the Palestinian people from the pervasive corruption in their leadership and the diversion of funds to waging wars and private coffers while development of infrastructure is disregarded. If Israel were to magically disappear, Hamas would start blaming all of the Palestinians' woes on Egypt, Jordan, or a more secular group of Palestinians. But go ahead, keep blaming the Jews, we're used to it... that's why we don't give a shit what the Euros say. We know damn well if someone was launching rockets on a daily basis into their backyards, their governments would respond with no regard for civilian casualties. Remember France's escapades in Cote D'Ivoire or the Central African Republic?

I'm sad that innocent Palestinians are suffering and getting killed in Gaza, but Israel is not the party of primary fault in this conflict. Clearly you don't remember, but Israel sat back for months during the cease fire (which Hamas broke) while rockets continued to fall in the South. Perhaps these rockets don't kill so many Israelis, but perhaps you would also like to live your life in a bomb shelter with sirens blaring every thirty minutes? Yes, the Israeli checkpoints are a menace, but as we have seen Hamas clearly is engaged in the mass smuggling of arms into Gaza, which is the reason so many of those checkpoints exist.

Hopefully people on both sides get tired of killing each other soon and get a real cease-fire together, but that doesn't seem likely at present.

Considering they are an extremist religious group, as opposed to Fatah which is more secular, they almost certainly would be able to find new targets.

Well, there's your problem right there.

Also, your racism is a bit above the level of subtle.

IANAL, but if I had to guess...

Diskeeper is probably arguing from Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos. A gym open to the public but affiliated with the Church of Latter Day Saints fired a janitor who wasn't a Mormon. The janitor sued, arguing the exemption for religious organizations from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting religious discrimination in employment) violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. IIRC, the Church argued that this exemption was a permissible accommodation of the Church's free exercise rights under the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with the Church.

The problem is, Diskeeper isn't a religious organization, so they don't qualify for the statutory exemption in Title VII. While religious instruction in the workplace may or may not be lawful, making continued employment dependent on religious instruction in a particular faith almost certainly is unlawful.

Hopefully Diskeeper goes down at the summary judgment stage, if not on a motion to dismiss.