User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 45

  1. #31
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    these people were appealing to OT law because of their personal beliefs, not because there is an established legal precedent here between that culture and ours.
    Ironically, if they had appealed to the Old Testament explicitly as a legal precedent rather than a normative arbiter, it would probably be grounds for a mistrial.

  2. #32
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valuable_Money View Post
    I seriously think that more goes into deciding the fate of a mans life than reading a few passages from the bible. Besides those who supposedly decided on this after reading the bible would of most likely made the same decision either way considering that's evidence that they BELIEVE the bible. No one who didnt already believe the bible would be convinced by a passage of the bible.
    If they already believed it, why would they have to pass around copies of the Bible and look it up?

    And if they didn't know what to do until looking it up, then the Bible determined the punishment -- not their a priori belief that he should be put to death.

    The Bible was being used as an authority to tell these people what to do and/or reaffirm it. It was being used to manipulate people who claimed to be Christians to do something that might not necessarily have been intuitive to them.

    Christians routinely make the case that that the death penalty is unjust even if one is a murderer. Just because you're Christian doesn't mean you believe in the death penalty.

    This is all a clever ploy by the defense.
    Oh sure, it might be a ploy, which is annoying.

    But I'm sickened by people who have to appeal to a book in order to justify a decision about a man's life. You should be able to make these decisions from an internalized moral code, if you're going to make them at all -- once that you've earned and is already part of you.

    Having to look it up during the discussion smacks of control and manipulation to me. People who claim to belong to a religious tradition now can be manipulated by those who know more than them about the Bible they claim to follow, whereas a case could be made for either. *shrug*
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #33
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    you are doing it wrong. your BIG problem is in the existence of juries.

    what's the qualitative difference between mc donalds fed morons who apply their streetsmarts to a judgement and people who apply the bible?

    being tried by a jury is a civl right? more like a right to be hanged by a mob. no, thank you.

    it follows the problem of the combination of accusation (vague definition of crime) and the meaning of "guilty".

    ideally (if you really cant do without jury), a jury should not decide anything but whether they believe, that the story told by lawyers, by evidence and circumstantial evidence and witnesses is believable. then a jury would make some sense.

    they should not decide about the moral/ethical 'nature' of the deed at all. like: was it planed murder or passion.
    (they should not make any classification that affects the nature of the punishment.
    nor should they decide, whether they agree with a suggested classification of crime or punishment)

    then neither bible nor streetwise ethics would be required or even helpfull. it would be rather impossible to apply the bible or any egocentric idea of "justice/fairness".

  4. #34
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook View Post
    you are doing it wrong. your BIG problem is in the existence of juries.
    The defendant gets a choice as to whether or not they want a trail by jury. Apparently, most people who contest criminal charges would rather be judged by twelve people with potentially diverse biases rather than one person with potentially specific biases.

  5. #35
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    The defendant gets a choice as to whether or not they want a trail by jury.
    glad to hear that. (i am german)

    rather than one person with potentially specific biases.
    ideally a judge, who gets to decide about anything bigger than parking ticket issues, should have the summed IQ, EQ and ethical education of twelve random people. i know, that this is not the case.

    it's better, not to break the law, i guess.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Valuable_Money's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    If they already believed it, why would they have to pass around copies of the Bible and look it up?

    And if they didn't know what to do until looking it up, then the Bible determined the punishment -- not their a priori belief that he should be put to death.

    The Bible was being used as an authority to tell these people what to do and/or reaffirm it. It was being used to manipulate people who claimed to be Christians to do something that might not necessarily have been intuitive to them.

    Christians routinely make the case that that the death penalty is unjust even if one is a murderer. Just because you're Christian doesn't mean you believe in the death penalty.



    Oh sure, it might be a ploy, which is annoying.

    But I'm sickened by people who have to appeal to a book in order to justify a decision about a man's life. You should be able to make these decisions from an internalized moral code, if you're going to make them at all -- once that you've earned and is already part of you.

    Having to look it up during the discussion smacks of control and manipulation to me. People who claim to belong to a religious tradition now can be manipulated by those who know more than them about the Bible they claim to follow, whereas a case could be made for either. *shrug*
    But the thing is, if it was any other form of control and manipulation people wouldnt be pissed. Also this would seem to imply that if any juror even mentions anything having to do with religion it invalidates the case. What if a juror mentioned that there father was killed and the murderer was allowed to live?
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh? wgah'nagl fhtagn

  7. #37
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    I am not a fan of capital punishment, but the crime in question was clearly a capital one, and reading the Bible is no grounds for exclusion as a juror/a mistrial.

    And I hate to break it to some people but "separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


    Being religious and/or using the Bible as a guide for thinking isn't unconstitutional. Formulating the LAW ITSELF on the Bible or a prosecutor using the Bible as the basis for a legal argument would be unacceptable.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #38
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    And I hate to break it to some people but "separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


    Being religious and/or using the Bible as a guide for thinking isn't unconstitutional. Formulating the LAW ITSELF on the Bible or a prosecutor using the Bible as the basis for a legal argument would be unacceptable.
    Thank you. I was just about to post that. Again. The article in the OP is blatantly false where it says "The US constitution calls for the separation of state and religion." The First Amendment was put in place to KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT, meaning they can't pass laws to restrict people's religious freedoms for or against. Many people (and courts) have been distorting it to create a mythical "separation of church and state" so long that people who don't actually read the Constitution believe that it's in there.

    I think it's ridiculous that a verdict would be thrown out because jurors consulted the Bible. If jurors brought in "Uncle Dave's 10 Tips For Living Right" instead, would the case be thrown out then? Because, otherwise they are clearly discriminating against Christianity.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  9. #39
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Thank you. I was just about to post that. Again. The article in the OP is blatantly false where it says "The US constitution calls for the separation of state and religion." The First Amendment was put in place to KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT, meaning they can't pass laws to restrict people's religious freedoms for or against. Many people (and courts) have been distorting it to create a mythical "separation of church and state" so long that people who don't actually read the Constitution believe that it's in there.

    I think it's ridiculous that a verdict would be thrown out because jurors consulted the Bible. If jurors brought in "Uncle Dave's 10 Tips For Living Right" instead, would the case be thrown out then? Because, otherwise they are clearly discriminating against Christianity.
    I don't think the problem is that people consulted the Bible or used the Bible as guiding principle in a capital case -- I think the issue is that Bibles were already in the room when the jurors entered. This seems suspicious not of people consulting the Bible of their own accord but being influenced by the State to consult and decide by it.

    I agree with Binary here -- there would have been no problem if the jurors had brought the Bibles in themselves, but they didn't.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  10. #40
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I don't think the problem is that people consulted the Bible or used the Bible as guiding principle in a capital case -- I think the issue is that Bibles were already in the room when the jurors entered. This seems suspicious not of people consulting the Bible of their own accord but being influenced by the State to consult and decide by it.

    I agree with Binary here -- there would have been no problem if the jurors had brought the Bibles in themselves, but they didn't.

    People swear on the Bible in court (or used to do so, I haven't been on jury duty). I wouldn't be surprised if they had a few lying around.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 09:07 PM
  2. [NT] Deciding how to live
    By Synarch in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 12:22 AM
  3. How do Fe-doms decide when to hate or dislike someone?
    By Mort Belfry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 11:21 PM
  4. [MBTItm] Wanting to be both T and F, what made u decide which?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 12:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO