• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it time to not have religious people on juries?

Tim the plumber said:
How about a test which rules in people? That they can understand what evidence is and how it relates to stuff.
Click to expand...

That could be a possibilty, a pons asinorum for prospective jurors.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Wouldn't there have been a great amount of talk about it all overt the Roman world? Wouldn't the various historians who were writing at the time have mentioned it?
Click to expand...

Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
Not really? considering Jesus only appeared to a couple Jews .... And the knowledge of it spread over time.
Click to expand...

So there were not many witnesses to this resurrection after all then.
Click to expand...


Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
According to the narratives probably around 500 something.
Click to expand...

Which is it?

This format allows me to go back and find the things you have previously written. A couple is not 500. Please look at what you have written and think about the fact that for you reality is whatever you want it to be at that instant. I expect that this is causing you problems in your life. I think you will never be at all happy whilst you continue to think this way.

I do not think that "Logicman" should be allowed to sit on a jury.
 
Tim the plumber said:





Which is it?

This format allows me to go back and find the things you have previously written. A couple is not 500. Please look at what you have written and think about the fact that for you reality is whatever you want it to be at that instant. I expect that this is causing you problems in your life. I think you will never be at all happy whilst you continue to think this way.

I do not think that "Logicman" should be allowed to sit on a jury.
Click to expand...

A couple and then five hundred. This is evidence?
 
zyzygy said:
A couple and then five hundred. This is evidence?
Click to expand...

It is evidence that Logicman cannot understand the difference between a couple and 500.

That is why I do not consider him of a level of competence to sit on a jury.

It's even worse than that, he does understand the difference but his comprehension of things is so fluid that the past is always changeable for him. That he has written one thing when it suited him and then changed his story will never have sunk into his head.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It is evidence that Logicman cannot understand the difference between a couple and 500.

That is why I do not consider him of a level of competence to sit on a jury.

It's even worse than that, he does understand the difference but his comprehension of things is so fluid that the past is always changeable for him. That he has written one thing when it suited him and then changed his story will never have sunk into his head.
Click to expand...

If you're going to believe in a god then your logic has to be malleable.
 
Tim the plumber said:
How about a test which rules in people? That they can understand what evidence is and how it relates to stuff.
Click to expand...

That kind of test is already made at the voir dire. Lawyers don't want people who can think analytically on the jury, so a test that would rule them in by your lights would rule them out from the standpoint of the lawyers. Beyond wanting people who would not be unfair to their side, lawyers want people who will be swayed by emotional arguments and are not too intelligent. Atheists can be as dippy as anyone in that regard.
 
LowDown said:
That kind of test is already made at the voir dire. Lawyers don't want people who can think analytically on the jury, so a test that would rule them in by your lights would rule them out from the standpoint of the lawyers. Beyond wanting people who would not be unfair to their side, lawyers want people who will be swayed by emotional arguments and are not too intelligent. Atheists can be as dippy as anyone in that regard.
Click to expand...

Who, apart from the lawyers, would want the lawyers to make that decision?
 
The jury is supposedly of your peers. call up a dozen random taxpayers, there's your jury, get on with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom