Lets ask the Bible...

On any forum, threads of this nature are normally closed, however sometimes staff allow them to continue so long as members don't be vile, crude and insulting.


Its always possible to have an intelligent conversation about anything..

 

I think people are blowing this out of proportion to be honest. The law already sentenced him as guilty and it was up to the jury to decide if to give him the death penalty or not. So that means it was their opinion and everyones morale standards are based on something, society, culture, religion, their own feelings etc. Aren't we suppose to be tolerate of other peoples belief systems?

Higgs you say it was the use of the bible or religion in a court of law that was your problem, but the court actually disagreed because of the fact the Bible had some influence on their decision. Meaning they are doing their job and keeping it out of the law system, so whats the problem here? sounds to me its the fact they choose to base their beliefs or morales on their religion, not the fact the religion influenced the court because it didnt.

I thought the whole point of a jury was to have a morale debate anyway?

I'm sure there are plenty of defendants that may not believe they should be punished for what they do or believe they have a right to kill others that doesnt change the fact they broke the law and must face the penalty. works both ways. From what your saying whether he believes in the deity or not should be irrelevant so it shouldn't matter..

 

I'm not against the death penalty, if someone kills a family or something I believe they deserve death---when you murder someone out of cold blood you forfeit your right to live in my mind under most circumstances.

HOWEVER!

I'm also against using it in practice because quite frankly, there are too many innocent people being killed for crimes other people are doing. There are literally hundreds of people every day in our country being let off of Death Row for a crime they just were found innocent of doing due to new technologies. They were about to be killed for something they did not do.

SO! That means that people in the past in the thousands, if not tens of thousands have been killed for crimes they were innocent of---and if they were just in jail for life they could have been let out by now most likely and the real culprit in jail.

I'm not against the Death Penalty itself, I'm just against the way it's presented---too many innocent people die for crimes they don't do.

 

This thread is not about death penatly.

 

It's about you saying how bad religion is and how much it's bad?

I read the first page and everyone there pretty much refuted your point that religion influenced this penalty or whatever.

 

Exactly. 'It's about you saying how bad religion is and how much it's bad.' Not a discussion about the validity of death pentalty.

 

So then Higgs are you a biggot? It seems like you are considering the nature of your threads on the topic. Which makes you no better than the closed minded people who only believe in their religion.

 

What you wrote makes no sense, rephrase it.

 

woah woah pancake no need to go into ad hominem attacks here. I thinks it great that in this forum such discussion are actually allowed as long as they are civil. Calling someone a bigot generally leads to a flame war and makes the thread unsuitable to discussion.

So i ask you a question, is questioning religion all that bad? I mean what makes religion so different from everything else? People always say respect their belief when religion is questioned yet i never see this applied to politics which is a personal belief as well of how things should run.

Also the problem Higgs is trying to address is that fact that the ruling was done with the influence of the bible. It doesn't matter if it gets overturned or not but the fact that such a ruling was done in the first place is what he was trying to get. Should we let religion really sway the jurors? Separation of the state and church anyone?

Sorry if this is a thread necromancy of sorts, i just wanted to add my input into this

 

The bible is a condratiction in terms at time.

On one hand it says you kill one person and you deserve to be sentenced to death. And one of the 10 commandments is not to kill anyone
But on the other hand it also says that an army recruited by God to go and slaughter some other peoples is totally ok.

So kill one person and you are put to death. But get together 250 mates and all throw on the same coloured clothes and call it a uniform and all kill together and it's ok. There's something seriously wrong about that. But it's how we operate today too as a civilisation.

 

Yes the8thark but this is not a thread where we discuss the contradiction in the bible.

 

That post is on topic even if you can not see it.

The whole point is you can use the bible to ague he's guilty. You can also use the bible to say hes innocent. Just depends on how you spin your arguement. And I think the court realised this discrepency and is trying to fix it. And in my opinion the bible should not be used like it was in the courts.

 

any book you ever read will probably slightly change the way you think, fictional or not(i will not go into what the bible falls under). For any person with any believes(be they christian, neo-pagan or communist) there will be sources that have had a stronger influence on you then others. The bible is one among many works, and the only difference it makes in this case is the fact that it was named. But if you have a christian jury, it is obvious that the bible will have had influence on their judgement, just like if you had a jury made up of communists, the communist manifesto will have helped form their character, and thus their judgement.

This is one of the reasons i dont like legal systems with jury's. But since that country has one, they shouldn't differentiate between people who were formed by religious sources and those that were formed by non-religious sources