English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean. If a good and true fundamentalist Christian killed an abortion doctor, gay man, or stem cell scientist, shouldn't he be tried by a Jury of his peers? Like minded Christians who understand the will of god?

Well?

http://flushaholybook.com

2006-08-30 14:10:32 · 41 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

41 answers

I'm not so sure that theists should be allowed on juries at all. If they'll believe in gods and goddesses, they'll believe anything...

2006-08-30 14:18:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I see no reason why not. If the persons difference in religion clouds their ability to determine right from wrong, guilty from not guilty, then they have more issues than religion.
But, jury of your peers doesn't mean, a jury of people filled with the same hatreds and predjudices as you. It basically means that they won't have a monkey push a red, or a blue button in a cage to determine guilt or innocence. Also, again, if this person has committed murder, they obviously do not understand the will of God, and the question about "jury of peers" is nullified.

2006-08-30 14:20:54 · answer #2 · answered by detecting_it 3 · 0 0

I've often thought that I could not possibly get a fair trial were I ever accused of something, because the court would almost certainly not permit me a jury consisting of only "Brights". I can't imagine having any faith at all in the ability of a jury that included people whose belief systems were so deeply supernatural.

I'm reminded of when Woody Allen passed a lie detector test after everyone got upset about his relationship with Soon-yi, and someone wrote a letter to the editor of Time Magazine saying that a person "with no conscience" would be able to beat a lie detector test easily. Can you imagine having someone like that on your jury?

2006-08-30 14:16:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A good and true fundamental Christian won't kill someone. There is no such thing. But no, an atheist should not be allowed to serve on that jury, because that atheist will most likely be biased in his ruling. The court can't have that. That's like asking a Crip to serve on the jury of a Blood. Where's the fairness int hat?

2006-08-30 14:15:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Some atheists are more than capable of making an unbiased judgement. Not all atheists hate Christians. A jury of your peers doesn't always mean everyone who has the same beliefs as you or even the same skin color. Should a black man accused of a crime have an entirely black jury?

2006-08-30 14:15:53 · answer #5 · answered by TJMiler 6 · 0 0

Are you saying it is morally right to for a Christian to kill those people? Congratulations, you just made the Fundamentalist Christian Terrorist list. COME ON what is the difference between you saying that and a Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist saying it is okay that 9/11 happened. You BOTH believe it is the will of God and you BOTH have some serious issues with your warping a basically decent belief system.

2006-08-30 14:19:23 · answer #6 · answered by thewolfskoll 5 · 0 0

Mostly, Democracy means no discrimination is made for reasons of race, gender, or religion. An assassin must be judged by a random selection of citizens who have not known the accused person before. As simple as that. There is no such thing as 'will of god', especially in a murder. Mostly because the book fundies love so much says you won't kill another person, in which case I think the will of god regarding assassination is clear, even if the victim is a gay, abortist, scientist or blaspheme.

2006-08-30 14:18:51 · answer #7 · answered by Kazeed 2 · 0 0

Yes, atheists should be allowed to sit on the jury and no the defendant shouldn't be allowed to have only like minded people on the jury.

2006-08-30 14:15:26 · answer #8 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 1 0

Yes atheists should be allowed to serve. It should be a jury of your PEERS not a jury of "your own personal cheering section".

2006-08-30 14:18:14 · answer #9 · answered by ♥Mira♥ 5 · 0 0

They would in fact be biased.

The job of those selecting a jury is to choose people that AREN'T biased...

So, an atheist, who would only pay attention to the facts of the matter, meaning the physical evidence, the forensic, genetic evidence etc. is the most logical choice.

The purpose of the court is to decide whether he is GUILTY of the crime, motives don't make a difference.

2006-08-30 14:14:59 · answer #10 · answered by RED MIST! 5 · 1 0

According to that logic, rapists should be tried by an all-men jury. And someone who sues a company should have a jury of representatives from companies.

2006-08-30 14:42:59 · answer #11 · answered by ysk 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers