| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ltlee1" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 01:41:10 AM |
| Object: |
Another violation of religious freedom |
Judges are government officials. Bringing their view of God into the
trial or the sentencing is violating the separation of Church and
State.
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury duty. As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
-------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Death-Penalty-Bible.html?March
28, 2005
Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury's Bible Reading
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:24 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death
penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible
verses such as ``eye for eye, tooth for tooth'' during deliberations.
On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison
without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda
Maloney in 1994 and raping her at gunpoint for two hours.
The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense
lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them
down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed
doors.
The Supreme Court said that ``at least one juror in this case could
have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the
death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life
sentence.''
Assistant District Attorney Michael Goodbee said prosecutors were
reviewing the ruling and could ask the state Supreme Court to
reconsider or could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court last month, defense
attorney Kathleen Lord said the jurors had gone outside the law. ``They
went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment,''
she said.
Prosecutors had argued that jurors should be allowed to refer to the
Bible or other religious texts during deliberations.
------------------
.
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 01:52:41 AM |
|
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112060470.421379.41240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Judges are government officials. Bringing their view of God into the
trial or the sentencing is violating the separation of Church and
State.
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury duty. As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
-------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Death-Penalty-Bible.html?March
28, 2005
Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury's Bible Reading
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:24 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death
The strangest part is that the Bible says:
1.) The rapist must marry her;
...and/or...
2.) If she didn't cry out loud enough to be heard, she is to be stoned to
death.
The jury was obviously a bunch of idiots reading the Bible....but I repeat
myself.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
10 May 2005 12:50:38 PM |
|
|
TV's The other Donald wrote:
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112060470.421379.41240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Judges are government officials. Bringing their view of God into the
trial or the sentencing is violating the separation of Church and
State.
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury duty. As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
-------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Death-Penalty-Bible.html?March
28, 2005
Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury's Bible Reading
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:24 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death
The strangest part is that the Bible says:
1.) The rapist must marry her;
..and/or...
2.) If she didn't cry out loud enough to be heard, she is to be stoned to
death.
The jury was obviously a bunch of idiots reading the Bible....but I repeat
myself.
The jury were obviously Salad Bar Xians, either that or they are horribly
ignorant of what their Bible says. Probably a little of both.
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 05:38:38 AM |
|
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112060470.421379.41240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Death-Penalty-Bible.html?March
28, 2005
Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury's Bible Reading
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:24 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death
penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible
verses such as ``eye for eye, tooth for tooth'' during deliberations.
On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison
without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda
Maloney in 1994 and raping her at gunpoint for two hours.
The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense
lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them
down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed
doors.
That's weird. I mean, it's one thing a single juror to go off spouting Bible
verses, but it's a whole 'nother thing entirely for five jurors to look up
Bible verses, copy them down, and talk about them during deliberations. I'll
tell you what probably happened, here's my CSI crime scene re-enactment.
The jurors were deliberating, and a few of them didn't want to do the death
penalty thing, but they all claimed that they were basically Christians. One
of the jurors said "Well, you know the Bible says an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth, a life for a life." The others, being the kind of Christians
who never cracked a Bible in their life, said "No, really?" So then they
decided that everyone who knew about the Bible would look up examples of
God's word related to this crime, and they'd discuss.
So now, suppose you're in Detroit, and you've got 4 muslims, 4 christians, 2
hindus, and 2 undeclared people on the jury. So some of the Muslims bring
out some books on Sharia law, and some of the Christians break out the
Bible, one of the Hindus starts quoting from the Manu Smirti, and one of the
undeclared people keeps prefacing each remark with "Back in the Old Country,
we..." - sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I think the upshot of it is that no matter what kind of guidance people use
to make their own decisions, or even to present a personal argument, when
deliberating as a jury, they need to be thinking about Michigan law, or
Colorado law, or whatever law is applicable to the case. The one verse those
Christians failed to copy was the most important in this situation: "Render
unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is God's".
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 04:01:17 PM |
|
|
Dale wrote:
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112060470.421379.41240@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Death-Penalty-Bible.html?March
28, 2005
Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury's Bible Reading
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:24 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the
death
penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible
verses such as ``eye for eye, tooth for tooth'' during
deliberations.
On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in
prison
without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda
Maloney in 1994 and raping her at gunpoint for two hours.
The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense
lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied
them
down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind
closed
doors.
That's weird. I mean, it's one thing a single juror to go off
spouting Bible
verses, but it's a whole 'nother thing entirely for five jurors to
look up
Bible verses, copy them down, and talk about them during
deliberations. I'll
tell you what probably happened, here's my CSI crime scene
re-enactment.
The jurors were deliberating, and a few of them didn't want to do the
death
penalty thing, but they all claimed that they were basically
Christians. One
of the jurors said "Well, you know the Bible says an eye for an eye,
a tooth
for a tooth, a life for a life." The others, being the kind of
Christians
who never cracked a Bible in their life, said "No, really?" So then
they
decided that everyone who knew about the Bible would look up examples
of
God's word related to this crime, and they'd discuss.
So now, suppose you're in Detroit, and you've got 4 muslims, 4
christians, 2
hindus, and 2 undeclared people on the jury. So some of the Muslims
bring
out some books on Sharia law, and some of the Christians break out
the
Bible, one of the Hindus starts quoting from the Manu Smirti, and one
of the
undeclared people keeps prefacing each remark with "Back in the Old
Country,
we..." - sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I think the upshot of it is that no matter what kind of guidance
people use
to make their own decisions, or even to present a personal argument,
when
deliberating as a jury, they need to be thinking about Michigan law,
or
Colorado law, or whatever law is applicable to the case. The one
verse those
Christians failed to copy was the most important in this situation:
"Render
unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is
God's".
As I had posted, there are more than one way to see the christian Bible
or the Quran or any other holy books. Concerning the case, I cannot
tell whether the jury under discussion see the christian bible as the
word/law of God. Firstly, I can't read minds. Secondly, from an
agnostic's point of view, describing them as reading God's word or
God's law make no sense as long as God cannot be proven to exist.
Hence, five people consulting the christian bible is fundamentally not
different from five people consulting a certain book on ethics or a
certain book/dictionary on the meaning of justice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guru Google" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
04 Apr 2005 03:54:03 PM |
|
|
ltlee1 wrote:
Dale wrote:
I think the upshot of it is that no matter what kind of guidance
people use
to make their own decisions, or even to present a personal
argument,
when
deliberating as a jury, they need to be thinking about Michigan
law,
or
Colorado law, or whatever law is applicable to the case. The one
verse those
Christians failed to copy was the most important in this situation:
"Render
unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is
God's".
As I had posted, there are more than one way to see the christian
Bible
or the Quran or any other holy books. Concerning the case, I cannot
tell whether the jury under discussion see the christian bible as the
word/law of God. Firstly, I can't read minds. Secondly, from an
agnostic's point of view, describing them as reading God's word or
God's law make no sense as long as God cannot be proven to exist.
Hence, five people consulting the christian bible is fundamentally
not
different from five people consulting a certain book on ethics or a
certain book/dictionary on the meaning of justice.
U dont understand the separation of church and sttate concept, dont
you? But its not ur fault. U come from the atheist regime PRC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
04 Apr 2005 05:10:02 PM |
|
|
Guru Google wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
Dale wrote:
I think the upshot of it is that no matter what kind of guidance
people use
to make their own decisions, or even to present a personal
argument,
when
deliberating as a jury, they need to be thinking about Michigan
law,
or
Colorado law, or whatever law is applicable to the case. The one
verse those
Christians failed to copy was the most important in this
situation:
"Render
unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is
God's".
As I had posted, there are more than one way to see the christian
Bible
or the Quran or any other holy books. Concerning the case, I cannot
tell whether the jury under discussion see the christian bible as
the
word/law of God. Firstly, I can't read minds. Secondly, from an
agnostic's point of view, describing them as reading God's word or
God's law make no sense as long as God cannot be proven to exist.
Hence, five people consulting the christian bible is fundamentally
not
different from five people consulting a certain book on ethics or a
certain book/dictionary on the meaning of justice.
U dont understand the separation of church and sttate concept, dont
you? But its not ur fault. U come from the atheist regime PRC.
It is not the concept. The concept is straight forward. It is the
execution of the separation. Proper execution needs a clear demaraction
between what is church business and what is state business. And I find
most Americans comingling church business with state business.
For example, it is clear to me that Moore's rock is only a piece of
rock. Of course, freedom of religion would allow the citizens to see
whatever they want to see. The question before the judges are:
1. Is it necessary for the judges to invest the same symbolic
significance on that piece of rock?
Answer: Not at all. No secular law requires that. If the judges are
agnostics, he would be able to see the rock as what it is, a piece of
rock with certain markings.
2. Will such a piece of rock, safely secured, hurt anyone physically
and mentally?
Answer: Not at all. Hence the state has no interest to decide whehter
that piece of rock or other piece of rock with different markings
should be that.
Conclusion: If the majority of the poeple want that piece of rock to be
in the courtroom, no reason to remove it.
American judge's problem: They can't see the reality objectively.
Hence, they comingle church business and state business. Hence, there
would not be real separation of church and state. Hence, cases similar
to Moore's rock will continue. Hence, Americans' religious freedom will
continue to be violated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
08 Apr 2005 07:19:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:10:02 -0700, ltlee1 thought carefully and wrote:
Guru Google wrote:
U dont understand the separation of church and sttate concept, dont
you? But its not ur fault. U come from the atheist regime PRC.
It is not the concept.
Your reasoning process is weird.
No one is talking about a rock. The words are the issue. To ignore the
words is ludicrous.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guru Google" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
05 Apr 2005 06:21:27 AM |
|
|
ltlee1 wrote:
Guru Google wrote:
U dont understand the separation of church and sttate concept, dont
you? But its not ur fault. U come from the atheist regime PRC.
It is not the concept. The concept is straight forward. It is the
execution of the separation. Proper execution needs a clear
demaraction
between what is church business and what is state business. And I
find
most Americans comingling church business with state business.
since u post this in scChina, da u wanna say something bout how CCP
handle this? That's a good talk in "another violation of riligious
freedom". ^_^
For example, it is clear to me that Moore's rock is only a piece of
rock. Of course, freedom of religion would allow the citizens to see
whatever they want to see. The question before the judges are:
1. Is it necessary for the judges to invest the same symbolic
significance on that piece of rock?
Answer: Not at all. No secular law requires that. If the judges are
agnostics, he would be able to see the rock as what it is, a piece of
rock with certain markings.
2. Will such a piece of rock, safely secured, hurt anyone physically
and mentally?
Answer: Not at all. Hence the state has no interest to decide whehter
that piece of rock or other piece of rock with different markings
should be that.
Conclusion: If the majority of the poeple want that piece of rock to
be
in the courtroom, no reason to remove it.
American judge's problem: They can't see the reality objectively.
Hence, they comingle church business and state business. Hence, there
would not be real separation of church and state. Hence, cases
similar
to Moore's rock will continue. Hence, Americans' religious freedom
will
continue to be violated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
05 Apr 2005 12:05:53 PM |
|
|
Guru Google wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
Guru Google wrote:
U dont understand the separation of church and sttate concept,
dont
you? But its not ur fault. U come from the atheist regime PRC.
It is not the concept. The concept is straight forward. It is the
execution of the separation. Proper execution needs a clear
demaraction
between what is church business and what is state business. And I
find
most Americans comingling church business with state business.
since u post this in scChina, da u wanna say something bout how CCP
handle this? That's a good talk in "another violation of riligious
freedom". ^_^
One problem is that American judges cannot rid themselves thier
theistic view. Comingling church and state is an American tradition.
Other countries without such a tradition, Chine being one of them,
probably can do better in the separation of church and state.
For example, it is clear to me that Moore's rock is only a piece of
rock. Of course, freedom of religion would allow the citizens to
see
whatever they want to see. The question before the judges are:
1. Is it necessary for the judges to invest the same symbolic
significance on that piece of rock?
Answer: Not at all. No secular law requires that. If the judges are
agnostics, he would be able to see the rock as what it is, a piece
of
rock with certain markings.
2. Will such a piece of rock, safely secured, hurt anyone
physically
and mentally?
Answer: Not at all. Hence the state has no interest to decide
whehter
that piece of rock or other piece of rock with different markings
should be that.
Conclusion: If the majority of the poeple want that piece of rock
to
be
in the courtroom, no reason to remove it.
American judge's problem: They can't see the reality objectively.
Hence, they comingle church business and state business. Hence,
there
would not be real separation of church and state. Hence, cases
similar
to Moore's rock will continue. Hence, Americans' religious freedom
will
continue to be violated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
08 Apr 2005 07:22:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:05:53 -0700, ltlee1 thought carefully and wrote:
Guru Google wrote:
since u post this in scChina, da u wanna say something bout how CCP
handle this? That's a good talk in "another violation of riligious
freedom". ^_^
One problem is that American judges cannot rid themselves thier
theistic view. Comingling church and state is an American tradition.
Other countries without such a tradition, Chine being one of them,
probably can do better in the separation of church and state.
Do you mean that China could accept such a "rock" being placed in its
courtrooms? LOL.
Or that China, like the USA, would insist on removing the "rock" (in which
case you need to apply your -false- criticisms to both the USA and the PRC).
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guru Google" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
06 Apr 2005 05:02:54 AM |
|
|
ltlee1 wrote:
Guru Google wrote:
since u post this in scChina, da u wanna say something bout how CCP
handle this? That's a good talk in "another violation of riligious
freedom". ^_^
One problem is that American judges cannot rid themselves thier
theistic view. Comingling church and state is an American tradition.
Other countries without such a tradition, Chine being one of them,
probably can do better in the separation of church and state.
by mixing communism and state. :^))
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 02:28:02 AM |
|
|
In article <1112060470.421379.41240
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury duty. As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
These jurors weren't just "believing" what they wanted; they
were substituting Biblical law for Colorado law.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 02:52:25 AM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112060470.421379.41240
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury duty.
As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
These jurors weren't just "believing" what they wanted; they
were substituting Biblical law for Colorado law.
Does it make any difference if one or more recited a certain Biblical
verses? Did any of them explicitedly say that they were substituting
religious law for Colorado law?
Anyway, proper separation of church and state requires the judges to
refrain from seeing thing through the religious lens. If the judges
behaved as agnostics, the religious literature the juries had consulted
was irrelevant. The christian bible says "God exists" does not make
God exists an objective reality.
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 02:51:23 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 28 Mar 2005 18:52:25 -0800, "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112060470.421379.41240
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury duty.
As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
These jurors weren't just "believing" what they wanted; they
were substituting Biblical law for Colorado law.
Does it make any difference if one or more recited a certain Biblical
verses?
Yes.
Did any of them explicitedly say that they were substituting
religious law for Colorado law?
Yes.
Anyway, proper separation of church and state requires the judges to
refrain from seeing thing through the religious lens. If the judges
behaved as agnostics, the religious literature the juries had consulted
was irrelevant. The christian bible says "God exists" does not make
God exists an objective reality.
And?
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 04:58:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1112064745.792356.229520
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Does it make any difference if one or more recited a
certain Biblical verses?
It might, yes.
What you're attempting (purposefully or not) is a well-known
trick of adversarial argumentation: If an opponent will not
concede a point, reword the point to make it softer; repeat
until the assertion has been watered down so much that the
opponent finally agrees with it; when he does so, declare
victory and pretend the opponent has conceded the original,
stronger point.
With that in mind, I can tell you that I consider the mere
mention of a Bible verse by a juror to be unproblematic. But
were are not talking about mere recitation. Several jurors in
these proceedings discussed and related Biblical law to the
facts of the case, which makes it clear they were basing their
sentencing decisions on religious grounds.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 05:20:41 AM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112064745.792356.229520
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Does it make any difference if one or more recited a
certain Biblical verses?
It might, yes.
What you're attempting (purposefully or not) is a well-known
trick of adversarial argumentation: If an opponent will not
concede a point, reword the point to make it softer; repeat
until the assertion has been watered down so much that the
opponent finally agrees with it; when he does so, declare
victory and pretend the opponent has conceded the original,
stronger point.
With that in mind, I can tell you that I consider the mere
mention of a Bible verse by a juror to be unproblematic. But
were are not talking about mere recitation. Several jurors in
these proceedings discussed and related Biblical law to the
facts of the case, which makes it clear they were basing their
sentencing decisions on religious grounds.
From an agnostic's point of view, there is not such thing as "on
religious ground." There is only "on human ground." Also see my
response to Baker if you wish.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 05:40:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1112073641.534324.289170
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
From an agnostic's point of view, there is not such thing as "on
religious ground." There is only "on human ground."
Why not? No one is denying that religions exist.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 10:42:24 AM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112073641.534324.289170
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
From an agnostic's point of view, there is not such thing as "on
religious ground." There is only "on human ground."
Why not? No one is denying that religions exist.
Many ways to see the christian bible-- as history, as literature, as
philosophy/ethics, and as God's word/law. From an agnostic's point of
view, bible can be any of the above except as God's word or God's law.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 03:15:45 PM |
|
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112092944.423613.17030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112073641.534324.289170
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
From an agnostic's point of view, there is not such thing as "on
religious ground." There is only "on human ground."
Why not? No one is denying that religions exist.
Many ways to see the christian bible-- as history, as literature, as
philosophy/ethics, and as God's word/law. From an agnostic's point of
view, bible can be any of the above except as God's word or God's law
And from an atheist's view as well.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 06:04:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1112092944.423613.17030
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Many ways to see the christian bible-- as history, as literature, as
philosophy/ethics, and as God's word/law. From an agnostic's point of
view, bible can be any of the above except as God's word or God's law.
Christians believe Biblical laws trace to divine ordinance, so
an agnostic can without contradiction speak of "religious law,"
meaning "law derived from religion." Doing so does not imply
acceptance of the supposedly supernatural source of the law.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 07:19:24 PM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112092944.423613.17030
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Many ways to see the christian bible-- as history, as literature,
as
philosophy/ethics, and as God's word/law. From an agnostic's point
of
view, bible can be any of the above except as God's word or God's
law.
Christians believe Biblical laws trace to divine ordinance, so
an agnostic can without contradiction speak of "religious law,"
meaning "law derived from religion." Doing so does not imply
acceptance of the supposedly supernatural source of the law.
Laws are only laws if they can be enforced. "Biblical laws traceable to
divine ordinance" are not enforceable on earth like government laws.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guru Google" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
04 Apr 2005 03:52:31 PM |
|
|
ltlee1 wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112092944.423613.17030
Christians believe Biblical laws trace to divine ordinance, so
an agnostic can without contradiction speak of "religious law,"
meaning "law derived from religion." Doing so does not imply
acceptance of the supposedly supernatural source of the law.
Laws are only laws if they can be enforced. "Biblical laws traceable
to
divine ordinance" are not enforceable on earth like government laws.
"laws are only laws if they can be enforced". LTLee is commenting on
PRC antisecession law. ^_^
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 01:53:07 PM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2005 02:42:24 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112073641.534324.289170
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
From an agnostic's point of view, there is not such thing as "on
religious ground." There is only "on human ground."
Why not? No one is denying that religions exist.
Many ways to see the christian bible-- as history, as literature, as
philosophy/ethics, and as God's word/law. From an agnostic's point of
view, bible can be any of the above except as God's word or God's law.
It is however not the law of the land.
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 03:15:25 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 02:42:24 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112073641.534324.289170
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
From an agnostic's point of view, there is not such thing as "on
religious ground." There is only "on human ground."
Why not? No one is denying that religions exist.
Many ways to see the christian bible-- as history, as literature, as
philosophy/ethics, and as God's word/law. From an agnostic's point
of
view, bible can be any of the above except as God's word or God's
law.
It is however not the law of the land.
Don't understand. Please elaborate.
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 03:26:57 PM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2005 07:15:25 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Mar 2005 02:42:24 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112073641.534324.289170
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
From an agnostic's point of view, there is not such thing as "on
religious ground." There is only "on human ground."
Why not? No one is denying that religions exist.
Many ways to see the christian bible-- as history, as literature, as
philosophy/ethics, and as God's word/law. From an agnostic's point
of
view, bible can be any of the above except as God's word or God's
law.
It is however not the law of the land.
Don't understand. Please elaborate.
Yes you do. Stop playing games.
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 03:04:17 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2005 18:52:25 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112060470.421379.41240
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury duty.
As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
These jurors weren't just "believing" what they wanted; they
were substituting Biblical law for Colorado law.
Does it make any difference if one or more recited a certain Biblical
verses? Did any of them explicitedly say that they were substituting
religious law for Colorado law?
Of course it makes a difference. Whather they admit it or not, they
are replacing teh law of the land with what the bible says.
Anyway, proper separation of church and state requires the judges to
refrain from seeing thing through the religious lens. If the judges
behaved as agnostics, the religious literature the juries had consulted
was irrelevant. The christian bible says "God exists" does not make
God exists an objective reality.
Except that it was the jury.
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 03:18:00 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 Mar 2005 18:52:25 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112060470.421379.41240
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury
duty.
As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
These jurors weren't just "believing" what they wanted; they
were substituting Biblical law for Colorado law.
Does it make any difference if one or more recited a certain
Biblical
verses? Did any of them explicitedly say that they were substituting
religious law for Colorado law?
Of course it makes a difference. Whather they admit it or not, they
are replacing teh law of the land with what the bible says.
Anyway, proper separation of church and state requires the judges to
refrain from seeing thing through the religious lens. If the judges
behaved as agnostics, the religious literature the juries had
consulted
was irrelevant. The christian bible says "God exists" does not make
God exists an objective reality.
Except that it was the jury.
The jury serving jury duty is not government officials. It is their
right to seeing things through whatever lens they want.
A more appropriate question is whether the jury reflects the populace.
Reading from the Christian bible will be an abnormalie in Tibet. But it
is normal in America.
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 03:21:07 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2005 19:18:00 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 28 Mar 2005 18:52:25 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
Brian E. Clark wrote:
In article <1112060470.421379.41240
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ltlee1 said...
Juries are not government officals while serving their jury
duty.
As
citiznes, they are free believe whatever religion they want.
These jurors weren't just "believing" what they wanted; they
were substituting Biblical law for Colorado law.
Does it make any difference if one or more recited a certain
Biblical
verses? Did any of them explicitedly say that they were substituting
religious law for Colorado law?
Of course it makes a difference. Whather they admit it or not, they
are replacing teh law of the land with what the bible says.
Anyway, proper separation of church and state requires the judges to
refrain from seeing thing through the religious lens. If the judges
behaved as agnostics, the religious literature the juries had
consulted
was irrelevant. The christian bible says "God exists" does not make
God exists an objective reality.
Except that it was the jury.
The jury serving jury duty is not government officials. It is their
right to seeing things through whatever lens they want.
No.
If they see it through a religious lens that is grounds for appeal.
A more appropriate question is whether the jury reflects the populace.
Reading from the Christian bible will be an abnormalie in Tibet. But it
is normal in America.
Not in courts. I suggest you read the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 04:40:57 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:caih419gm7d0veij7k4k5a7knjk938178n@4ax.com...
On 28 Mar 2005 19:18:00 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
A more appropriate question is whether the jury reflects the populace.
Reading from the Christian bible will be an abnormalie in Tibet. But it
is normal in America.
Not in courts. I suggest you read the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
If anything, the first amendment supports the jury. I'm an atheist, by the
way.
Amendment I
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Another violation of religious freedom |
29 Mar 2005 01:51:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:40:57 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:caih419gm7d0veij7k4k5a7knjk938178n@4ax.com...
On 28 Mar 2005 19:18:00 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
A more appropriate question is whether the jury reflects the populace.
Reading from the Christian bible will be an abnormalie in Tibet. But it
is normal in America.
Not in courts. I suggest you read the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
If anything, the first amendment supports the jury. I'm an atheist, by the
way.
No. They are supposed to judge according to law.
Amendment I
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.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
