• 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

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,829
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is it time to not have religious people on juries?

Just going by the standard of thinking shown on this section of the forum. The constant calling black white or redefining words to avoid the bleeding obvious point of a bible story.

Could you trust the judgement of a person who claims to have shown evidence of racism in evolutionary theory when clearly he has not. He has been repeatedly challenged to say which post this evidence was in and just say "I have done it!".

Am I being unkind? Are the vast majority of Christians just ignorant of actually thinking about their faith or and so have avoided all the obvious mental problems of knowing that they are following a load of drivel or do we just get the stupid one on here?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Is it time to not have religious people on juries?

Just going by the standard of thinking shown on this section of the forum. The constant calling black white or redefining words to avoid the bleeding obvious point of a bible story.

Could you trust the judgement of a person who claims to have shown evidence of racism in evolutionary theory when clearly he has not. He has been repeatedly challenged to say which post this evidence was in and just say "I have done it!".

Am I being unkind? Are the vast majority of Christians just ignorant of actually thinking about their faith or and so have avoided all the obvious mental problems of knowing that they are following a load of drivel or do we just get the stupid one on here?
Click to expand...

No, I don't agree with discrimination but, it is one pragmatic reason why the death penalty should never be allowed in any justice system.
 
William Rea said:
No, I don't agree with discrimination but, it is one pragmatic reason why the death penalty should never be allowed in any justice system.
Click to expand...

How about having some sort of reasoning test?

We don't allow the mentally deficient onto juries so why those who refuse to think straight?
 
Tim the plumber said:

How about having some sort of reasoning test?

We don't allow the mentally deficient onto juries so why those who refuse to think straight?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should have a scoring system where they knock off the top two and bottom two verdicts and judge on the remaining eight? That might filter out the stupid.

Trouble is, with the assessment you are proposing is that you then have to trust the assessors.
 
William Rea said:
Perhaps we should have a scoring system where they knock off the top two and bottom two verdicts and judge on the remaining eight? That might filter out the stupid.

Trouble is, with the assessment you are proposing is that you then have to trust the assessors.
Click to expand...

I don't mind being tried by clever people. It's those who don't get what evidence is and what it isn't.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I don't mind being tried by clever people. It's those who don't get what evidence is and what it isn't.
Click to expand...

There are clever religious people, even if they aren't clever enough to overcome superstition :)
 
So being non-religious is now morally supreme? :roll:
 
WCH said:
So being non-religious is now morally supreme? :roll:
Click to expand...

It always was when compared to many religions.

Non-religious people are moral because they choose to be, many religious people are moral under threat from the sky daddy.
 
William Rea said:
It always was when compared to many religions.

Non-religious people are moral because they choose to be, many religious people are moral under threat from the sky daddy.
Click to expand...

What about being moral because it's simply the right way to live?

Is your conscience different from God?
 
WCH said:
What about being moral because it's simply the right way to live?

Is your conscience different from God?
Click to expand...

You can do that without religion but it takes religion to make good men do evil things.

Yes, mine exists.
 
William Rea said:
It always was when compared to many religions.

Non-religious people are moral because they choose to be, many religious people are moral under threat from the sky daddy.
Click to expand...

Why don't we discuss whether people can render unbiased judgment in a jury trial instead of taking cheap shots at religion?
 
Lovebug said:
Why don't we discuss whether people can render unbiased judgment in a jury trial instead of taking cheap shots at religion?
Click to expand...

Sure but, I'm not going to leave my position undefended; see post #6 followed by #7.
 
`
Is it time to not have religious people on juries?
`
Ultra religious people? Yes but not all those who embrace religion. The problem is legally determining what is "ultra religious" is.
 
WCH said:
What about being moral because it's simply the right way to live?

Is your conscience different from God?
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't want to kill vast numbers of people just because they are in the way or live a different way of life to me.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Is it time to not have religious people on juries?
`
Ultra religious people? Yes but not all those who embrace religion. The problem is legally determining what is "ultra religious" is.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about just the extremists. I mean all of them. Can you tell the difference between evidence and drivel? If so why are you a believer in God? If your answer is logically drivel should you be on a jury?
 
WCH said:
As I've had told to me on many occasions here, straight thinking is subjective. ;)
Click to expand...

Not really. If you cannot tell if you have or have not posted evidence on a thread or if you have or have not claimed that the theory of evolution is racist on the Evolution is racist thread you started should you be on a jury?
 
I just love how religious people are expected to be tolerant and kind toward (and about) those with whom they disagree, but the treatment toward the religious, from the non-religious, is one of insults, loathing, and mockery regarding their level of intelligence.

I can assure you that not all religious people are idiots and morons. Fortunately, not all atheists are intolerant assholes. It must just be the ones that we get on here.
 
lizzie said:
I just love how religious people are expected to be tolerant and kind toward (and about) those with whom they disagree, but the treatment toward the religious, from the non-religious, is one of insults, loathing, and mockery regarding their level of intelligence.

I can assure you that not all religious people are idiots and morons. Fortunately, not all atheists are intolerant assholes. It must just be the ones that we get on here.
Click to expand...

Can I like a post more than once? If so, I reserve my multiple liking for this post.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Is it time to not have religious people on juries?

Just going by the standard of thinking shown on this section of the forum. The constant calling black white or redefining words to avoid the bleeding obvious point of a bible story.

Could you trust the judgement of a person who claims to have shown evidence of racism in evolutionary theory when clearly he has not. He has been repeatedly challenged to say which post this evidence was in and just say "I have done it!".

Am I being unkind? Are the vast majority of Christians just ignorant of actually thinking about their faith or and so have avoided all the obvious mental problems of knowing that they are following a load of drivel or do we just get the stupid one on here?
Click to expand...

Unkindness isn't the issue, but, yes, your dumb overgeneralizations and baiting rhetorical questions are ugly.

Should we rid ourselves of Supreme Court Justices who are people of faith? :roll:
 
Tim the plumber said:

I'm not talking about just the extremists. I mean all of them. Can you tell the difference between evidence and drivel? If so why are you a believer in God? If your answer is logically drivel should you be on a jury?
Click to expand...
`
That being said, however enticing your opinion is on this, eliminating all religious would not pass the constitutional smell test, so to speak. I just know way too many people of sincere religious belief who are not extreme and are able to look at law and legal situations objectively, outside the religious box.
 
I think this thread rather clearly proves that being an atheist is no guarantee of rational thinking. If anything, those who reject the wisdom of God, and substitute for it the foolishness of men, are a greater threat to rational decision-making than the worst of theists.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
Not really. If you cannot tell if you have or have not posted evidence on a thread or if you have or have not claimed that the theory of evolution is racist on the Evolution is racist thread you started should you be on a jury?
Click to expand...

Post evidence that you are a straight thinker because that's more subjective than any thing my faith 'shows' me.

BTW: I didn't start the evolution thread.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I think this thread rather clearly proves that being an atheist is no guarantee of rational thinking. If anything, those who reject the wisdom of God, and substitute for it the foolishness of men, are a greater threat to rational decision-making than the worst of theists.
Click to expand...

And in your rush for the moral high ground you trampled on your own point. :bravo:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom