Who Would Jesus Kill . . .

[CaptnKirk]

Colorado Case - State Supreme Court voids death pentalty

Well, Boys & Girls - here's the tip of the iceberg where juries decide to consult the Bible
for deciding what actions God wants them to take when they are acting as jurors.

Again, there is a limit to where religion plays it's hand in our system.
I guess that nobody chose to consult the Quaran, or some other religious document - or to ask the Pope who he wanted killed either.

Good thing they didn't ask Bush, DeLay, or Ashcroft - they would have said 'Daschle'.

 

[conjur]

Saw the woman interviewed this morning on GMA. When asked if she'd do it again, she replied, "Yes."

What a ditz. But, then again, she called the Bible "the word of God." Ignorance still exists in this enlightened age.

 

[sandorski]

That it was the Bible and not the Quran is moot IMO. I assume those in question belonged to a group that uses the Bible as their Holy book/writings.

I also disagree with the Court's ruling. These people were merely trying to vote their Conscience on the matter and as the article points out this is perfectly acceptable and unavoidable. I think there is certainly grounds for an Appeal on this decision.

Focus on the Family is out to lunch on their charge of "Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation," but what more can you expect from them? It may not be their idea of a "moral foundation" and the Court may even be wrong in this Judgement, but that's the way it goes sometimes. Courts ae not Infallible, that's why Appeals exist.

 

[Moonbeam]

This case will be appealed to the Supreme Court and properly overturned in my opinion. The justices, 3 to 2 who ruled to overturn the death sentence because a Bible was read in the jury deliberations are just plain nuts. We have a freedom from and of religion amendment to the Amendment to the Constitution that means we can sentence people based on our own personal conscience. You cannot separate your conscience from your history and your ethical and philosophical underpinnings, religious or otherwise, and as a juror you argue your opinion and debate your reasoning with other jurors. Many Christians know the Bible and can quote it without having the book. The presence or absence of the book is a minor point in the fact that Christian jurors are going to bring their Christianity derived feelings about the appropriateness of the death penalty to jury deliberations.

The Supreme Court of Colorado, in overturning this decision basically ruled that people who have a religious view use an irrational methodology in arriving at their decision. This is a violation of their separation freedom to practice their religion regardless of the opinion of the court. You cannot be stripped of your past ethical beliefs when you make a life death decision. And nobody has a right to attempt to so strip you of this belief.

The lawyers for the prosecution will ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider it's decision and if they refuse, which they likely will, it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court where I think it will be properly overturned.

I want to add that I hold this opinion regardless of the fact that I am personally opposed to the death penalty and am not a Christian, at least as Christians understand the term.

Edit: Place your hand on the Bible and repeat after me, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

 

[kylebisme]

Basing judgement on "own personal conscience" is one thing, evangelizing in to fellow jurry members is another one all together. The court rulled agaisn the latter.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This case will be appealed to the Supreme Court and properly overturned in my opinion. The justices, 3 to 2 who ruled to overturn the death sentence because a Bible was read in the jury deliberations are just plain nuts. We have a freedom from and of religion amendment to the Amendment to the Constitution that means we can sentence people based on our own personal conscience. You cannot separate your conscience from your history and your ethical and philosophical underpinnings, religious or otherwise, and as a juror you argue your opinion and debate your reasoning with other jurors. Many Christians know the Bible and can quote it without having the book. The presence or absence of the book is a minor point in the fact that Christian jurors are going to bring their Christianity derived feelings about the appropriateness of the death penalty to jury deliberations.

The Supreme Court of Colorado, in overturning this decision basically ruled that people who have a religious view use an irrational methodology in arriving at their decision. This is a violation of their separation freedom to practice their religion regardless of the opinion of the court. You cannot be stripped of your past ethical beliefs when you make a life death decision. And nobody has a right to attempt to so strip you of this belief.

The lawyers for the prosecution will ask the state Supreme Court to reconsider it's decision and if they refuse, which they likely will, it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court where I think it will be properly overturned.

I want to add that I hold this opinion regardless of the fact that I am personally opposed to the death penalty and am not a Christian, at least as Christians understand the term.

Edit: Place your hand on the Bible and repeat after me, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

I find it unlikely the SCOTUS will look at this case and overturn it. The decision was made based on court protocal that absolutely no outside influence, from magazines, to newspaper articles, to even the bible shall be present during deliberations by jurors. In this particular case, an outside influence was present, regardless of the fact that it was religious in nature, and this should not have taken place. You are free to make judgements based upon your religious beliefs, no doubt about that...however, the presence of a document that does not belong was, imo, why the Colorado SC made the correct decision to overturn.

 

[Moonbeam]

Snowman, by using the term evangelize you seek to impugn what is really arguing your ethical position which every juror is free to do. Everybody evangelizes what it is they believe. You, for example, were evangelizing your secular prejudice.

bdude, I respect your point of view and you may prove correct, but, as I said, the Bible is a part of the courtroom and our tradition. The text could as easily have been quoted from memory. I think the issue is not the presence or absence of the Bible itself, but the presence of religious persuasion that is central here. I think the State Supremes ruled against the free exercise of religion and that the decision will be overturned. We will see, if we live long enough.

 

[DealMonkey]

Just what is God's position on capital punishment?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Just what is God's position on capital punishment?

Simple - In the long run He kills everyone . . .

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Snowman, by using the term evangelize you seek to impugn what is really arguing your ethical position which every juror is free to do. Everybody evangelizes what it is they believe. You, for example, were evangelizing your secular prejudice.

First off, I am not a secular man; now perhaps you might care to rethink your position with that in mind?

 

[jackschmittusa]

It is no longer necessary to swear before god in court before giving testimony.

My opinion is that with a "no reference materials" rule is in place, it would include the Bible, as well as any other philisophical work.

I find it interesting that these people relied on references such as "an eye for an eye", which is old Jewish law. I thought Christians believed that Jesus represented the new covenant with god, which had the effect of nullifying much of that old Jewish law. Just as the laws regarding circumsision and dietary restrains were discarded, new phrases like "turn the other cheek" were introduced.

The title of the OP is also interesting from another point of view. Did these people conclude that Jesus would have ordered the defendant's execution. And did they reach that conclusion from Old Testement verses?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Just what is God's position on capital punishment?

Simple - In the long run He kills everyone . . .

rofl

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Basing judgement on "own personal conscience" is one thing, evangelizing in to fellow jurry members is another one all together. The court rulled agaisn the latter.

Ayup.

Monday's ruling said the Bible and other religious writings are considered "codes of law by many" in Colorado. But noting that it takes a unanimous jury to impose a death sentence here, the court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages ... when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

But that point will be overlooked by those on both sides.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Snowman, by using the term evangelize you seek to impugn what is really arguing your ethical position which every juror is free to do. Everybody evangelizes what it is they believe. You, for example, were evangelizing your secular prejudice.

First off, I am not a secular man; now perhaps you might care to rethink your position with that in mind?

You do not have to be a 'secular man' to evangelize a secular position which you continue to do here with me. Hehe. My point is that evangelize carries pejorative connotations which distort and pervert the issue. All attempts to argue any position, as jurors are wont to do, represents evangelizing by any other name. Let us say then that somebody on the jury argued that it is OK to apply the death penalty because it sways so in the old testament. Whether the point is made with or without the Bible is not, in my opinion, the issue. The point is that the court didn't want any authoritative text used in deliberations and that is a violation of separations. All ethical decisions are viewed by people as authoritative, in their opinion. You cannot exclude religious opinions because they are as close to people as their skin. I'm betting this opinion will be overturned.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
It is no longer necessary to swear before god in court before giving testimony.

My opinion is that with a "no reference materials" rule is in place, it would include the Bible, as well as any other philisophical work.

I find it interesting that these people relied on references such as "an eye for an eye", which is old Jewish law. I thought Christians believed that Jesus represented the new covenant with god, which had the effect of nullifying much of that old Jewish law. Just as the laws regarding circumsision and dietary restrains were discarded, new phrases like "turn the other cheek" were introduced.

The title of the OP is also interesting from another point of view. Did these people conclude that Jesus would have ordered the defendant's execution. And did they reach that conclusion from Old Testement verses?

What difference does it make. The issue is that the court ruled that religious opinion is irrational. It may be irrational, but it is a freedom we are guaranteed. The court can't order people not to use the conscience that they have. It is not up to the court to decide personal conscience.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Basing judgement on "own personal conscience" is one thing, evangelizing in to fellow jurry members is another one all together. The court rulled agaisn the latter.

Ayup.

Monday's ruling said the Bible and other religious writings are considered "codes of law by many" in Colorado. But noting that it takes a unanimous jury to impose a death sentence here, the court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages ... when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

But that point will be overlooked by those on both sides.

The court cannot exclude what many consider to be codes of law. We have the right to separation from court opinion. It is not the right of the court to tell jurors how to arrive at issues of conscience. If people are persuaded by books of authority, tough. They will be and are. It is our right to believe what we want and to arrive at our ethical decisions as we will.

 

[chowderhead]

If you believe the stories of the bible, Jesus had an opportunity to make his views clear on the subject of capital punishment. Some people brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus. They wanted to stone her because adultery was punishable by death. Jesus said.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone and they released her.
People who say they follow the word of Christ should be against capital punishment based on that story. Unfortunately, the bible is filled with so many seemingly contradictory statements that people can pick and choose what they want to believe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Look at it from another point of view:

We have a jury in the penalty phase of a trial deciding on live in prison or death.

But the death penalty is completely irrational, primitive, and backward and the result of ancient religious belief.

So some juror affirms the validity of this abomination based on religious text and that vitiates the sentence. What a titanic joke.

We have the death penalty as an option because we are primitive and we rule against its imposition because somebody alludes to its origin? Get real. As long as we are insane enough to allow the death penalty, we will have to allow its imposition on the insane grounds we allow ourselves to even consider it on in the first place.

 

[PatboyX]

reading it, it seems if someone happened to memorize the bible or had internalized it to such a degree that they didnt need to physically consult it, it would not be a problem. but the fact that they didnt know "gods word" well enough to know without looking it up makes the decision tainted.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Snowman, by using the term evangelize you seek to impugn what is really arguing your ethical position which every juror is free to do. Everybody evangelizes what it is they believe. You, for example, were evangelizing your secular prejudice.

First off, I am not a secular man; now perhaps you might care to rethink your position with that in mind?

You do not have to be a 'secular man' to evangelize a secular position which you continue to do here with me. Hehe. My point is that evangelize carries pejorative connotations which distort and pervert the issue. All attempts to argue any position, as jurors are wont to do, represents evangelizing by any other name. Let us say then that somebody on the jury argued that it is OK to apply the death penalty because it sways so in the old testament. Whether the point is made with or without the Bible is not, in my opinion, the issue. The point is that the court didn't want any authoritative text used in deliberations and that is a violation of separations. All ethical decisions are viewed by people as authoritative, in their opinion. You cannot exclude religious opinions because they are as close to people as their skin. I'm betting this opinion will be overturned.

You accused me of "secular prejudice" which is absurd as I am a man of faith. But, if you don't refuse to open your mind to how I can take the postion I do in accordence with relgious beleifs, I suppose there is nothing I can do to change that.

 

[Tab]

The bible I beileve does say we have "Control over the sword" or something simaller to that. Basically it states that we do infact have control over peoples live and can take them.

 

[kylebisme]

Regardless, that isn't an approrate argument in a jurry room. Saying you belive in punishment euqual to the crime is perefectly fine, but jusfying it by quoteing the Bible is not.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Regardless, that isn't an approrate argument in a jurry room. Saying you belive in punishment euqual to the crime is perefectly fine, but jusfying it by quoteing the Bible is not.

What other justification is there and why is it not fine. It is OK to be a silent bigot but you can't tell anybody why you have your opinion? That is a violation of separation and free speech. The implication of your argument is that the court could as easily insist on a religious basis for a death penalty decision. You can't inject or subtract religion if you are the state.

 

[kylebisme]

I'm sorry Moonbeam, I have puzzled over your post for about 10 minutes now and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot decipher it well enough to facilitate a response. If you care attempt to reiterate your questions I would be happy to try again.

 

[judasmachine]

Jesus defended prostitutes, and other "scum" from being stoned. That crazy hippy.