Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate

[Pingieking]

He should be sentenced to death, but he also deserves a retrial by a new jury. The new jury should be the ones that sentence him to death.
No books of any kind should be quoted in a trial unless it is part of the evidence or contains the US legal codes. This is not a knock on the bible, it applies to the Quran, Taoist books, books by Confucius, Lord of the Flies, Introduction to Electricity and Magnetism, and millions of other books.

1. This is a completely misunderstood situation and has been littered with misinformation, much of it meant to pose Christianity and it's practice in public in a negative light. These people didn't go into the Jury chambers, whip out a bible, and say "Alright, lets see what the good lord dun said bout dealin with these types o' things, I reckon... but before we begin, let us all bow our heads and pray... Oh Heavenly Father-- etc." It was simply consulted by the Jurors who already for the most part had probably already made up their MINDS based on the EVIDENCE, not some sort of "divine intuition". If anything, the Bible was used to help some of the jurors RECONCILE with delivering a GUILTY verdict as they would essentially be sending a MAN to his DEATH. Not everyone can handle such an earth-shattering decision, to have a human being's LIFE in their hands and know that their actions, just as the murderer's, will have a direct result of a life being TAKEN. I should hope that should I ever find myself in such a situation that people would do a little soul-searching instead of arbitrarily deciding to extinguish my life based on nothing but pure emotion-less logic.

2. What difference does it make if a new jury hears the case? Would you then further filter this Jury to make sure there are no Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or any other "faith"-having persons on the Jury? Just because you remove the BIBLE from the environment doesn't mean you remove people's FAITH or their reliance upon their moral upbringing. You'd just end up with a bunch of people who still are making their decisions in their heads based on that SAME moral belief system... unless you would start imposing "religious thought restrictions". At which point, you might as well have a jury composed of 12 servers that analyze the information and spit out a verdict based on nothing but numbers.

The use of the Bible in this case is nothing but an attempt to stir up controversy and a tactic employed by those who disagree with either the death penalty or this man in particular being put to death as a last ditch effort to prevent his execution.

You said it yourself. He should still be sentenced to death. The right verdict was given under every circumstance of the law.
The fact that the Jury had a Bible, a pencil, comfortable seats, or a special decree from Lord Xenu himself has absolutely no bearing here. It's a moot point.

1. Firstly, I personally perfer cold, unemotional logic for this kind of decision. Second, as I've said already, this is not Christian bashing. I would oppose it just as much to have the jurors consult The God Delusion, or the Qu'ran, or quote Confucious. I don't care what faith the juror's were, the point is that they should not be consulting a book that has no relavence to the trial.

2. I think he deserves a retrial, and he should get the death setence from that retrial. The first jury made the right decision the wrong way. Again, that has nothing to do with the juror's faith, but the fact that they consulted a book with no relavence to the trial essentially tainted the sentence. I don't even care if the new jury is full of fundamental Christians/Muslims/Athiests. The point isn't to take people's faith out of the jury, it's to take nonrelavent texts out of the court (there is an important distiction between that). By bringing in a book that is not part of evidence in for the jury, you are essentially adding in another opinion where there shouldn't be one. The jury should be the only ones making the decision, the authors of books should have no direct influence.

Yes, he should be sentenced to death, but the fact that the jury had a bible is not a moot point. The jury should not have access to anything opinonated (and basically all books except dictionaries are opinonated) outside of their own brain and the presented evidence. The right verdict with given, but under the wrong circumstances.

 

[Zombie Badger]

Who cares if the Bible was used (this is coming from an Atheist)? The guy deserves it anyway does he not?

Have you read the bible? Read these parts: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
It's fucking insane.

Goddomot Fronk, there goes my idea for the Lego Bible. The internet always beats me to it.

But proves you had a wonderful idea.

I like how this only show the rediculous side of the bible. You have to realize

1.) No one can interpret the original bible, the church has been known to be corrupt and
2.) This was created by someone who obvioulsy hates christianity.
3.) these are legos.... Yeah

1) Look at the shear amount of this 'ridiculous' side, and just how insane it is. Especially the parts advocating genocide and killing sprees for preaching alternate religions.
2) The Bible is still as is was; there have been very few alterations (the only one I know of is the rich bishops changing 'money is the root of all evil' to 'love of money is the root of all evil').
3) Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant, the words are still there and as bizzare and occasionally disturbing as ever.
4) What have you got against LEGO? Next you'll be telling me that videogames can't be anything more than cheap massacre simulators.

 

[Zorg Machine]

yeah but you shouldn't be able to be put to death for it. in fact, I believe you shouldn't receive the death penalty for anything other than multiple murders and making someone suffer something worse then death.

Why?

Murderers and rapists don't deserve second chances, they don't deserve compassion, and they certainly don't deserve forgiveness.

They deserve death. It's just a shame that executions have become such lengthy and expensive spectacles when one shot to the head does the job just as well.

so they should just find the guy who they think did it and shoot him? I suppose they say sorry to the family if they were wrong.
besides, should we simply kill anyone who has a sort of mental disorder and has killed being unable to control and/or understand what he does? and lastly, what if the murderer is a child? it seems like a small step from eye for an eye to child prison/execution.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Who cares if the Bible was used (this is coming from an Atheist)? The guy deserves it anyway does he not?

Have you read the bible? Read these parts: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
It's fucking insane.

Goddomot Fronk, there goes my idea for the Lego Bible. The internet always beats me to it.

But proves you had a wonderful idea.

I like how this only show the rediculous side of the bible. You have to realize

1.) No one can interpret the original bible, the church has been known to be corrupt and
2.) This was created by someone who obvioulsy hates christianity.
3.) these are legos.... Yeah

1) Look at the shear amount of this 'ridiculous' side, and just how insane it is. Especially the parts advocating genocide and killing sprees for preaching alternate religions.
2) The Bible is still as is was; there have been very few alterations (the only one I know of is the rich bishops changing 'money is the root of all evil' to 'love of money is the root of all evil').
3) Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant, the words are still there and as bizzare and occasionally disturbing as ever.
4) What have you got against LEGO? Next you'll be telling me that videogames can't be anything more than cheap massacre simulators.

1) Mao? Atheist. Stalin? Atheist. Pol Pot? Atheist. Dialectic Materialism? Zombie Badger. Pot? And kettle.

2) If you are not a Christian what business is it of yours exactly? Let Christians decide what to do with their own religion.

3) Disturbing? Bizarre? Hmmmm....

"some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them," -Sam Harris.

4) What is LEGO?

 

[Zombie Badger]

Who cares if the Bible was used (this is coming from an Atheist)? The guy deserves it anyway does he not?

Have you read the bible? Read these parts: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
It's fucking insane.

Goddomot Fronk, there goes my idea for the Lego Bible. The internet always beats me to it.

But proves you had a wonderful idea.

I like how this only show the rediculous side of the bible. You have to realize

1.) No one can interpret the original bible, the church has been known to be corrupt and
2.) This was created by someone who obvioulsy hates christianity.
3.) these are legos.... Yeah

1) Look at the shear amount of this 'ridiculous' side, and just how insane it is. Especially the parts advocating genocide and killing sprees for preaching alternate religions.
2) The Bible is still as is was; there have been very few alterations (the only one I know of is the rich bishops changing 'money is the root of all evil' to 'love of money is the root of all evil').
3) Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant, the words are still there and as bizzare and occasionally disturbing as ever.
4) What have you got against LEGO? Next you'll be telling me that videogames can't be anything more than cheap massacre simulators.

1) Mao? Atheist. Stalin? Atheist. Pol Pot? Atheist. Dialectic Materialism? Zombie Badger. Pot? And kettle.

2) If you are not a Christian what business is it of yours exactly? Let Christians decide what to do with their own religion.

3) Disturbing? Bizarre? Hmmmm....

"some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them," -Sam Harris.

4) What is LEGO?

1) Mao? Masses dead due to failures of plans to advance his country (most likely attempts to copy Stalin's four-year plans). Many others dead in the usual dictator's attempt to keep in power. Stalin? Ridiculously paranoid psychopath. Psychopathy is not limited to any particular group. Pol Pot? Psycho. Dictators are dictators, regardless of religion, and my point was that a widely followed holy text preaches genocide and killing your family, not that such activities are limited to a particular secular or religious affiliation. The hatred towards the west in the middle east before the US invaded Afghanistan was mostly left over from the crusades. Even today, Saladin (who drove the crusaders from the area) is revered, and most leaders in the area compare themselves to him (Saddam Hussein had posters of him next to Saladin everywhere). Religion has caused massive amounts of pain and misery throughout history, and continues to. It may just be the extremists, but they keep getting into power.

2) If a religion preaches that me and my friends and relatives should be killed or will be tortured for eternity I will take issue with it.

3) I don't quite see if you approve or dissaprove of this statement.

4) A toy from Denmark. It is used to make the images in The Brick Testament. If you have never heard of LEGO I pity you, as your childhood was missing something beautiful.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Who cares if the Bible was used (this is coming from an Atheist)? The guy deserves it anyway does he not?

Have you read the bible? Read these parts: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
It's fucking insane.

Goddomot Fronk, there goes my idea for the Lego Bible. The internet always beats me to it.

But proves you had a wonderful idea.

I like how this only show the rediculous side of the bible. You have to realize

1.) No one can interpret the original bible, the church has been known to be corrupt and
2.) This was created by someone who obvioulsy hates christianity.
3.) these are legos.... Yeah

1) Look at the shear amount of this 'ridiculous' side, and just how insane it is. Especially the parts advocating genocide and killing sprees for preaching alternate religions.
2) The Bible is still as is was; there have been very few alterations (the only one I know of is the rich bishops changing 'money is the root of all evil' to 'love of money is the root of all evil').
3) Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant, the words are still there and as bizzare and occasionally disturbing as ever.
4) What have you got against LEGO? Next you'll be telling me that videogames can't be anything more than cheap massacre simulators.

1) Mao? Atheist. Stalin? Atheist. Pol Pot? Atheist. Dialectic Materialism? Zombie Badger. Pot? And kettle.

2) If you are not a Christian what business is it of yours exactly? Let Christians decide what to do with their own religion.

3) Disturbing? Bizarre? Hmmmm....

"some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them," -Sam Harris.

4) What is LEGO?

1) Mao? Masses dead due to failures of plans to advance his country (most likely attempts to copy Stalin's four-year plans). Many others dead in the usual dictator's attempt to keep in power. Stalin? Ridiculously paranoid psychopath. Psychopathy is not limited to any particular group. Pol Pot? Psycho. Dictators are dictators, regardless of religion, and my point was that a widely followed holy text preaches genocide and killing your family, not that such activities are limited to a particular secular or religious affiliation. The hatred towards the west in the middle east before the US invaded Afghanistan was mostly left over from the crusades. Even today, Saladin (who drove the crusaders from the area) is revered, and most leaders in the area compare themselves to him (Saddam Hussein had posters of him next to Saladin everywhere). Religion has caused massive amounts of pain and misery throughout history, and continues to. It may just be the extremists, but they keep getting into power.

2) If a religion preaches that me and my friends and relatives should be killed or will be tortured for eternity I will take issue with it.

3) I don't quite see if you approve or dissaprove of this statement.

4) A toy from Denmark. It is used to make the images in The Brick Testament. If you have never heard of LEGO I pity you, as your childhood was missing something beautiful.

1) I love that. When a religious nut does something utterly horrific, religion is at fault. When an atheist nut does something horrific it is just because it was a general nut. Reminds me of Jack Thompson actually. If a nut does something bad, he's a nut. If a nut does something bad and had played a video game in the past 6 months then lets sue the fuck out of Rockstar, because obviously he would have been completely normal if he didn't play GTA right?

2) When they get in your face with it knock yourself out. When they are minding their own business - you mind yours. Nobody here is saying that, so go find a Christian website and troll there.

3) I am a sane and (I hope) without bigotry, therefore I utterly disapprove of that statement. I was demonstrating that atheism can also be used as an excuse for violence and hatred if someone is a whack job. A whack job will make an excuse out of anything.

4) Ahh right.

 

[Zombie Badger]

1) Mao? Masses dead due to failures of plans to advance his country (most likely attempts to copy Stalin's four-year plans). Many others dead in the usual dictator's attempt to keep in power. Stalin? Ridiculously paranoid psychopath. Psychopathy is not limited to any particular group. Pol Pot? Psycho. Dictators are dictators, regardless of religion, and my point was that a widely followed holy text preaches genocide and killing your family, not that such activities are limited to a particular secular or religious affiliation. The hatred towards the west in the middle east before the US invaded Afghanistan was mostly left over from the crusades. Even today, Saladin (who drove the crusaders from the area) is revered, and most leaders in the area compare themselves to him (Saddam Hussein had posters of him next to Saladin everywhere). Religion has caused massive amounts of pain and misery throughout history, and continues to. It may just be the extremists, but they keep getting into power.

2) If a religion preaches that me and my friends and relatives should be killed or will be tortured for eternity I will take issue with it.

3) I don't quite see if you approve or dissaprove of this statement.

4) A toy from Denmark. It is used to make the images in The Brick Testament. If you have never heard of LEGO I pity you, as your childhood was missing something beautiful.

1) I love that. When a religious nut does something utterly horrific, religion is at fault. When an atheist nut does something horrific it is just because it was a general nut. Reminds me of Jack Thompson actually. If a nut does something bad, he's a nut. If a nut does something bad and had played a video game in the past 6 months then lets sue the fuck out of Rockstar, because obviously he would have been completely normal if he didn't play GTA right?

2) When they get in your face with it knock yourself out. When they are minding their own business - you mind yours. Nobody here is saying that, so go find a Christian website and troll there.

3) I am a sane and (I hope) without bigotry, therefore I utterly disapprove of that statement. I was demonstrating that atheism can also be used as an excuse for violence and hatred if someone is a whack job. A whack job will make an excuse out of anything.

4) Ahh right.

1) I don't mean that all horrific acts by religious people are caused by their beliefs. Hitler was christian (he stated this repeatedly in Mein Kampf), but the Holocaust was not due to this, instead being due to his hatred of the Jews which started as envy of their success when he was living almost homeless in Vienna. Many horrific acts have been commited in the name of religion (crusades, witch trials, the state-enforced misogyny in many Islamic countries), while none have been done in the name of videogames.

2) Fair point.

3) People will use anything as an excuse ('My dog made me do it, God made me do it, Jodie Foster told me to do it'), and the worst are the people who convince others that the cause is just. However, religion is especially bad when twisted to the wills of nutters as there are far more people who will believe it, as they already believe in the fundamental beliefs.

 

[Shadeovblack]

Humanity needs to get over itself.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1) I don't mean that all horrific acts by religious people are caused by their beliefs. Hitler was christian (he stated this repeatedly in Mein Kampf), but the Holocaust was not due to this, instead being due to his hatred of the Jews which started as envy of their success when he was living almost homeless in Vienna. Many horrific acts have been commited in the name of religion (crusades, witch trials, the state-enforced misogyny in many Islamic countries), while none have been done in the name of videogames.

2) Fair point.

3) People will use anything as an excuse ('My dog made me do it, God made me do it, Jodie Foster told me to do it'), and the worst are the people who convince others that the cause is just. However, religion is especially bad when twisted to the wills of nutters as there are far more people who will believe it, as they already believe in the fundamental beliefs.

1) Firstly, Hitler -

"we have no sort of use for a fairytale invented by the Jews." From Hitler: A study in tyranny by Allan Bullock.

Albert Speer's memoirs, however, are even more telling:-

"Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity"

"I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie"

And most telling of all...

?the dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. When understanding of the universe has become widespread . . . then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity?.

You never heard of Table Talk written by Martin Bormann?

Hitler needed the respect and votes of millions of Christians or at least people who were respectful of Christianity when he wrote Mein Kampf, and using that as evidence of his Christian beliefs, when all that happened since demonstrated profound evidence to the contrary, demonstrates a certain willingness to believe what one wants to believe.

Secondly, whatever horror done in the name of religion you will find parallel horrors done in the name of atheism.

Read this commentary, written by an atheist:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-an-unbelievers-defence-of-religious-faith-523292.html

And read this possibly:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

3) Religion is especially bad? What actual evidence do you have for this? You see, there are 4 and a half billion people on earth today who are religious, the vast majority of whom manage to get through the day without doing anything twisted or evil at all. If there was something intrinsically evil or twisted about religion, there would be far bigger examples than a few extremists in war-torn countries attacking those they see as enemies, or 12 jurors who may (or may not) have consulted a Bible during deliberations. How many other Christians sit on juries every day without consulting Bibles? Have you a figure?

We are back to Jack Thompson. If games were dangerous, a lot more than a handful out of millions would be committing violent acts.

If religion was dangerous, a lot more than... 12 jurors in Texas... would be... I don't know? Reading a Bible in court? Out of the millions who live there.

To quote from the article above (written by an atheist):-

The truth, however, is that while Dawkins is absolutely right to blame tribal religious sectarianism for many ancient and bloody conflicts, the modern era has dwarfed those crimes with the countless millions slaughtered or starved at the hands of purely secular powers: not just the Nazis but also by the Cardinals of Communism, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong.

What those campaigns of extermination demonstrate - campaigns compared to which the annihilation of the World Trade Centre by the Islamic fundamentalist Bin Laden was a mere bagatelle - is that no matter how much damage may be caused when man worships God, it cannot compare with the damage caused when man worships man.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

1. Firstly, I personally perfer cold, unemotional logic for this kind of decision. Second, as I've said already, this is not Christian bashing. I would oppose it just as much to have the jurors consult The God Delusion, or the Qu'ran, or quote Confucious. I don't care what faith the juror's were, the point is that they should not be consulting a book that has no relavence to the trial.

Be very careful what you wish for.
You might just find that people who can send a man to his death as easily and logically as balancing their checkbook are to me abominations more closely related to the person they are sentencing to death. Every person should have some sort of moral conflict with making that decision and THEN decide on the proper course of action.
Sterile, unfeeling, coldly logical jcitizens are the first step to oppressive, totalitarian regimes and death squads...

 

[Tdc2182]

Who cares if the Bible was used (this is coming from an Atheist)? The guy deserves it anyway does he not?

Have you read the bible? Read these parts: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
It's fucking insane.

Goddomot Fronk, there goes my idea for the Lego Bible. The internet always beats me to it.

But proves you had a wonderful idea.

I like how this only show the rediculous side of the bible. You have to realize

1.) No one can interpret the original bible, the church has been known to be corrupt and
2.) This was created by someone who obvioulsy hates christianity.
3.) these are legos.... Yeah

1) Look at the shear amount of this 'ridiculous' side, and just how insane it is. Especially the parts advocating genocide and killing sprees for preaching alternate religions.
2) The Bible is still as is was; there have been very few alterations (the only one I know of is the rich bishops changing 'money is the root of all evil' to 'love of money is the root of all evil').
3) Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant, the words are still there and as bizzare and occasionally disturbing as ever.
4) What have you got against LEGO? Next you'll be telling me that videogames can't be anything more than cheap massacre simulators.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have nothing against legos. Just wanna get that out there. Yeah it's rediculous, and I personally take it as examples and morals. I have nothing againsst gays, I support them.
2.) Thats the thing, we don't know what has been changed. There could be absolutely nothing different or a whole different concept. Did you ever try that social expieriment in school where you line up and the person at the front whispers something and it goes down the line and then the person at the back says something completely different. That is what most likely happened. The bible has been translated so many times and parts of the bible about Jesus have been removed to make him seem less mortal and more godlike ( the Da vinci Code anyone?) Like I said, I am one of many recovering Catholics. I beliee, but just take different meanings, think outside the box if you will.
3.) Humans make mistakes. That was there way of finding if someone was a leper, but it didn't say to kill them, did it? It was a sickness that made rational people irrational (swine flu to give you an idea). that may be a little off topic, sorry.
1. Yeah it preached of killings, but have we seen any christians these days go out and kill others? Maybe the crazies who we don't associate ourselves with, But preachers never tell us to kill. Its a contradiction in the bible that was placed by corruption.

 

[Master Cerberus]

yeah but you shouldn't be able to be put to death for it. in fact, I believe you shouldn't receive the death penalty for anything other than multiple murders and making someone suffer something worse then death.

Why?

Murderers and rapists don't deserve second chances, they don't deserve compassion, and they certainly don't deserve forgiveness.

They deserve death. It's just a shame that executions have become such lengthy and expensive spectacles when one shot to the head does the job just as well.

^ This...

Also, to take a radical stance on the issue, people have become rather separated from the whole execution process. They find it "inhumane" and "offensive" to witness these people getting whats coming to them. I think a lot of people don't consider the consequences of their actions (in situations that merit severe legal punishment) when it comes to such things as executions. I am sure if people were more familiar with them then they wouldn't do stupid things that lead to them.

More on topic, the Bible should not be "allowed" withing a certain distance of a building used to conduct legal proceedings. It is not something any competent adult should use as a sources of inspiration or a guideline to make any sort of decision unless it is directly involved with their own beliefs. Its inexcusable to have these people bring bibles into the courtroom, furthermore, people who exhibit such strong ties to religion shouldn't even be allowed to try someone in the first place. The reason? Because they probably don't have a mind flexible enough to evaluate the problem presented to them in an objective manner...unless its as black and white as that case.

Freedom OF religion does NOT = Freedom "FROM" Religion

What you are advocating is the restriction and subsequent oppression of an entire demographic of people.
Thats an EXTREMELY dangerous line of thought you are starting down... such things lead first to segregation, then direct oppression of such activities such as in China... it starts with removing it from certain 'places' such as a building used to conduct legal proceedings.. then it starts branching out to 'other' places.. places of education, places of PUBLIC gatherings, etc.. soon you would want to stamp out any open and public displays of "religious belief".
So then you'll drive those people underground. But then you wont be able to tell who they are any more, which means they could be doing things secretly that might be of concern.

So then you'll decide that in order to make sure we know who these "people" are so that you can make sure to prohibit their actions accordingly, you'll decide to "mark" them. They will be required to wear badges or patches to distinguish who they are so you know that these people who might be memorizing their bibles don't go anywhere near a building of legal proceedings since it is not enough to remove just the PHYSICAL reminder of their religious beliefs. But then these people will grow tired of being treated differently and oppressed for their BELIEFS and start rejecting the mandatory wearing of their patches.. so you will seek a more permanent solution.. branding them in a way they cannot remove with tattoos, forming lists of "known practitioners" and setting up special units of "law enforcement" in order to ensure these people are obeying your edicts. But still that wont be enough. They will continue to have their faith and beliefs and *gasp* they might even be Gathering and sharing these beliefs! Can't have that can you?

So then the gathering of such groups will be restricted... at first to "designated" areas where you can monitor them, but then you'll realize SOME people are worshipping in the privacy of their own homes! well that simply won't do... so then private worship will be outlawed. Soon you'll institute a "narc" system where people can report when and where these people hold their clandestine meetings. As more and more people are convicted and the prison's fill up, naturally the penalties to deter such actions will increase... until finally, you decide that the only way to completely rid society of these foolish, barbaric "beliefs" is to snuff out the religion altogether.

You decide on a "final solution".

Does any of this sound familiar? It should.

The Road to HELL is paved with "good intentions".

We live in a land of freedom. If i want to carry my Bible with me and refer to it for guidance in my life and moral decisions then that is my RIGHT. If you do not want to have any part of it, then that is YOUR Right and I would die to defend it. But people of faith are just as capable of making logical decisions based on facts and evidence as any one else. Just because we would refer to a higher power to aid us in MORAL decisions (i.e. decisions that could resort in the DEATH of a human being, in this case the accused murderer) then there is absolutely NO fault in that.

Again, it's a silly argument all around. People don't read the BIBLE to make it EASIER to SENTENCE people to death.. in fact, for a true Christian of faith or a True Muslim, such a decision is distasteful. Christians don't WANT to put ANYONE to death. We forgive. We hold out HOPE that people can change and believe in MERCY. Those are the true teachings of Christ.
So if anything, in cases of the DEATH penalty where a group of people have to decide to end the LIFE of another person, I personally believe as much moral material as possible should be available.. every room should have a Bible, Quran, Tennants of Xenu or whatever in them. Why?

Because the worst scenario is a bunch of juries comprised of people who have no problem making moral life and death decisions at the drop of a hat with all the sterility of a Nazi firing squad.
Heaven help you should you find yourself on trial awaiting the verdict of such a group of faith-less people who tossed their Bibles out in favor of secular progression.
Because in that situation, you'll most likely find yourself all the more likely to wind up with a needle in YOUR arm.

Well that certainly struck a nerve or two, I didn't expect someone to so strongly feel about what I would say. Well since you've invested so much of your faith and showed me the logic behind your statement it would be inappropriate for me not return the favor and explain the reasoning behind my statements. I do warn you that my ideas are radical to those of other people and I have a rather pessimistic view of the human race in general so you might be offended but it is the way I think and it is my right to do so.

I find religion to be an obsolete relic, an idea of the human mind that was created as means to cope with the human inability to satisfy its inherent need to control and organize its own environment. It has been a source of constant strife for our race as a whole and although I do not reject the idea of religion I strongly reject any and all of its incarnations in the modern world. Here is my brief understanding of the impact religion has had on the human race from its creation and its evolution to the modern day.

In the beginning, there were many gods, going back to that human need to label and control its environment. They represented concepts and forces the human mind could not understand or wished to collect into a singular entity that was close to humanity and therefore granted our race some measure of familiarity or control over whatever the god represented. In those days people embraced the many gods and preyed to them for aid in their daily lives. They did not fight wars over who's god was better. They fought for resources need to continue the existence of their race. But then an idea formed in the minds of man, an idea for one god and one god only. A being all powerful and all knowing, benevolent in nature and wrathful to those who would stand against its worshipers. So what did this being pass onto man in its infinite wisdom? A book of laws given to the people through the minds of men who claimed to hear the voice of this great being...and so did the age of suffering begin for the world of man. As now, not only did one spill the blood of another to survive and prosper but also to establish that his god was the true god.

So in the end what did religion bring the world of man with its message of salvation and forgiveness? The crusades and the senseless slaughter of other human beings in the name of one's god contradicting the fundamental laws set down by god that one shall not take the life of another. The inquisition and the persecution of other individuals because they did not believe in the same god that the establishment had proclaimed to be the one true god. Human sacrifice to appease one's gods. Endless war over empty ideas that exist in one's mind alone. Hitler's final solution as you've chosen to mention that. The destruction of cultures and established ways of life of other people in order to share with them the blissful enlightenment that your lord or any other chooses to provide. Corruption of the institution by imperfect human beings and the perversion of the few ideas that were of any worth in the original message for the sake of adapting it to a modern world. The abuse of faith and power invested in those who are to guide the gullible masses. And at last, the establishment of an institution that practices a form of slavery in the 21st century that is not noticed by any because it is subtly worked into the system that people accept it without a second thought. THIS is your religion, it is a perverse abomination of man and not of any divine being, it can not be created by any man for what right has any mortal to interpret the ideas of a being so superior to him as to be considered divine?!

Such relics have no place in the modern world, the only way the human race will advance is to abandon such ideas for they breed nothing but hatred, falsehood and greed under the cover of salvation for those too weak of mind to travel through life on their own.

That is why I think religion should not be allowed anywhere near a place that is involved in any process of using logic and reason to decide the fate of fellow human beings. For I would rather be judged by machines that would take into account every variable of my transgressions and formulate my punishment based on the severity of the crime sooner than by a group of opinionated pieces of meat that think that they have the right to decide my fate based on the things they've accumulated in their miserably short lifetimes coupled with the mindless babel they read from that book of ignorance and intolerance.

Now that that is out of the way lets move on to the topic of execution.

I do not believe in the forgiveness you so fondly speak of, for I have learned that few human beings actually learn for the compassion of others. Those who do learn deserve it but based on the level of their crime.
The primary stimuli of human beings for learning are suffering and greed. As we would not reward those who harm others the only logical choice is to punish them and hope that they learn though trial and error (as well as the example of others) that what they do is not accepted by society. It is indeed a slippery slope which I advocate in theory because human beings are incapable of sustaining extreme ideas in moderation, they are tempted to cling to one of the extremes, desperate to avoid the place of balance because it conflicts with their need to acquire what they want with the least amount of effort or exercise of restraint. Therefore those who take life should be remove from existence, they do not value the life of others and society should not expend its resources to sustain these parasites. With everything though there come exceptions so judgment should not be lightly given.

So these are the ideas that lie behind the statement I made, feel free to respond to them if you wish. I look forward to hearing what you have to say to this.

 

[The Golden Sun]

Capital punishment is so hypocritical. It sinks the state to the level of the criminal, and its a totally archaic system of justice. And a life sentence would be worse.

We can't keep them or kill them... your logic seems so infallible!

Should we just break into the deep subconsciousness of their mind and manipulate them into becoming productive citizens then?
(I think that is actually a fine idea)

I meant a life sentence would be worse for them. And have you ever seen A Clockwork Orange?

 

[Pingieking]

1. Firstly, I personally perfer cold, unemotional logic for this kind of decision. Second, as I've said already, this is not Christian bashing. I would oppose it just as much to have the jurors consult The God Delusion, or the Qu'ran, or quote Confucious. I don't care what faith the juror's were, the point is that they should not be consulting a book that has no relavence to the trial.

Be very careful what you wish for.
You might just find that people who can send a man to his death as easily and logically as balancing their checkbook are to me abominations more closely related to the person they are sentencing to death. Every person should have some sort of moral conflict with making that decision and THEN decide on the proper course of action.
Sterile, unfeeling, coldly logical jcitizens are the first step to oppressive, totalitarian regimes and death squads...

I wasn't advocating for a completely logical society (it's not even possible, since humans aren't really logical creatures). I was saying that the laws and corresponding punishments should be applied without emotions and moral considerations. The emotional and moral parts of the process were already completed during the law making/writing process, and it's unnecessary to do it again for the trial and sentencing. If you don't agree with the moral applications of certain laws, the courtroom is not the place to change that (it doesn't matter if you think that capital punishment is wrong and perverse, the point is whether the convict fits the legal discription as someone worthy of capital punishment); change it at the voting booth or the place of political debates (that's part of what government is for, deciding what the laws are). The application of justice should be cold and emotionless, but laws themselves are based upon generally accepted moral guidelines. The exception for all this is the odd cases, where the circumstances of the crime doesn't fit well into the established laws, since in those cases we are basically forced to improvise on our legal codes.

We disagree about the applications of logic in life and death situations. In my opinion, if I had to be killed, I'd rather be killed for a logical reason rather than a random fit of rage. I'd even take a logical reason over moral reasons, simply because a perfectly logical reason is something that I can't argue with, but moral reasons are very relative. If someone can come up with a logical reason why I had to die, then I am unworthy of life. But if someone comes up with a moral reason of why I had to die, I'd feel quite cheated since he/she could be a total nutcase.

Your last sentence would have made sense if only you didn't add "unfeeling" and "coldly logical" to it. Firstly, there have never been a set of completely logical citizens, simply because humans are not completely logical creatures to begin with. Secondly, you have nothing to back that statement up with since none of the totalitariam regimes have ever been logical or unfeeling. All totalitarian regimes have been extremely emotional, just in an unhealthy way. They operate through terror ,hatred and worship; terror toward their own citizens, hatred either towards themselves or towards someone else (usually a minority or a precieved outsider), and the worship of whoever is in power (some dictators might claim to be acting on behalf of God, but that doesn't change the fact that the people are worshipping the dictator, not the God that he claims to be working for). None of those things are logical in the least bit.

Lastly, for all those people blaming religion, stop it! Religion doesn't create crazy people (though they do help in creating ignorant people), it is mearly something crazy people cite to justify their insanity, but since those people are INSANE their opinions should not be held in high regard. This is not saying that religion is completely innocent, but it is certainly not the root cause (or even guilty in any sense). Insane people will do insane things, the only difference is how they try justify their insanity.

 

[Master Cerberus]

1. Firstly, I personally perfer cold, unemotional logic for this kind of decision. Second, as I've said already, this is not Christian bashing. I would oppose it just as much to have the jurors consult The God Delusion, or the Qu'ran, or quote Confucious. I don't care what faith the juror's were, the point is that they should not be consulting a book that has no relavence to the trial.

Be very careful what you wish for.
You might just find that people who can send a man to his death as easily and logically as balancing their checkbook are to me abominations more closely related to the person they are sentencing to death. Every person should have some sort of moral conflict with making that decision and THEN decide on the proper course of action.
Sterile, unfeeling, coldly logical jcitizens are the first step to oppressive, totalitarian regimes and death squads...

Lastly, for all those people blaming religion, stop it! Religion doesn't create crazy people (though they do help in creating ignorant people), it is mearly something crazy people cite to justify their insanity, but since those people are INSANE their opinions should not be held in high regard. This is not saying that religion is completely innocent, but it is certainly not the root cause (or even guilty in any sense). Insane people will do insane things, the only difference is how they try justify their insanity.

Religion is just a tool of man to control man, its not the crazy people that justify their acts that give religion a bad name, its the people who use it to control others that give it a bad name. Religion is a concept that can not be achieved by human beings...it just doesn't work, in its pure state I would agree that it is a thing that can exist to help people in their lives but as soon as any human influence is input into it, it becomes useless.






"Mansur:


The Golden Sun:
Capital punishment is so hypocritical. It sinks the state to the level of the criminal, and its a totally archaic system of justice. And a life sentence would be worse.

We can't keep them or kill them... your logic seems so infallible!

Should we just break into the deep subconsciousness of their mind and manipulate them into becoming productive citizens then?
(I think that is actually a fine idea)

I meant a life sentence would be worse for them. And have you ever seen A Clockwork Orange?"

No, nor do I need to, capital punishment is in fact balance in the system. When you take from one something so improtant to them (life, dignity or whatnot that makes them suffer) you should have it take from you to make you appreciate the severity of your action.

 

[Pingieking]

Lastly, for all those people blaming religion, stop it! Religion doesn't create crazy people (though they do help in creating ignorant people), it is mearly something crazy people cite to justify their insanity, but since those people are INSANE their opinions should not be held in high regard. This is not saying that religion is completely innocent, but it is certainly not the root cause (or even guilty in any sense). Insane people will do insane things, the only difference is how they try justify their insanity.

Religion is just a tool of man to control man, its not the crazy people that justify their acts that give religion a bad name, its the people who use it to control others that give it a bad name. Religion is a concept that can not be achieved by human beings...it just doesn't work, in its pure state I would agree that it is a thing that can exist to help people in their lives but as soon as any human influence is input into it, it becomes useless.

I would argue that those who are can be controlled by religion are themselves insane, and they use religion to justify their acceptance to that control, whether they are aware of it or not. Other than that I agree with your opinion.

 

[Zombie Badger]

1) Look at the shear amount of this 'ridiculous' side, and just how insane it is. Especially the parts advocating genocide and killing sprees for preaching alternate religions.
2) The Bible is still as is was; there have been very few alterations (the only one I know of is the rich bishops changing 'money is the root of all evil' to 'love of money is the root of all evil').
3) Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant, the words are still there and as bizzare and occasionally disturbing as ever.
4) What have you got against LEGO? Next you'll be telling me that videogames can't be anything more than cheap massacre simulators.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have nothing against legos. Just wanna get that out there. Yeah it's rediculous, and I personally take it as examples and morals. I have nothing againsst gays, I support them.
2.) Thats the thing, we don't know what has been changed. There could be absolutely nothing different or a whole different concept. Did you ever try that social expieriment in school where you line up and the person at the front whispers something and it goes down the line and then the person at the back says something completely different. That is what most likely happened. The bible has been translated so many times and parts of the bible about Jesus have been removed to make him seem less mortal and more godlike ( the Da vinci Code anyone?) Like I said, I am one of many recovering Catholics. I beliee, but just take different meanings, think outside the box if you will.
3.) Humans make mistakes. That was there way of finding if someone was a leper, but it didn't say to kill them, did it? It was a sickness that made rational people irrational (swine flu to give you an idea). that may be a little off topic, sorry.
1. Yeah it preached of killings, but have we seen any christians these days go out and kill others? Maybe the crazies who we don't associate ourselves with, But preachers never tell us to kill. Its a contradiction in the bible that was placed by corruption.

1) The preachers in the US that preach that gays should be killed, the occasional murder of an abortion doctor in the US ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/01/us-abortion-doctor-shooting-murder ), the killing of children in Africa for witchcraft ( http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/evangelical-christians-in-africa-killing-children-for-being-witches/ ). You could also possibly take into account the recent actions of Israel which many Israeli religous figures support (the Jewish scriptures form the Old Testament, after all).
2) I see the point. Maybe referencing the Jewish scriptures would be more accurate, as they are very carefully hand-copied and must be as accurate as possible. As far as the New Testament goes, It would be best to either find an ancient handwritten copy of it (very difficult), or consult a Gutenberg bible (the first printed copy), of which about 80 remain, some in almost perfect condition.
3) Can't fault you there.

My biggest problem with religions is that they take millenia-old ideals and try to apply them to the real world, often declaring any change as heresy.

 

[Master Cerberus]

1) Look at the shear amount of this 'ridiculous' side, and just how insane it is. Especially the parts advocating genocide and killing sprees for preaching alternate religions.
2) The Bible is still as is was; there have been very few alterations (the only one I know of is the rich bishops changing 'money is the root of all evil' to 'love of money is the root of all evil').
3) Whether you like the pictures is irrelevant, the words are still there and as bizzare and occasionally disturbing as ever.
4) What have you got against LEGO? Next you'll be telling me that videogames can't be anything more than cheap massacre simulators.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have nothing against legos. Just wanna get that out there. Yeah it's rediculous, and I personally take it as examples and morals. I have nothing againsst gays, I support them.
2.) Thats the thing, we don't know what has been changed. There could be absolutely nothing different or a whole different concept. Did you ever try that social expieriment in school where you line up and the person at the front whispers something and it goes down the line and then the person at the back says something completely different. That is what most likely happened. The bible has been translated so many times and parts of the bible about Jesus have been removed to make him seem less mortal and more godlike ( the Da vinci Code anyone?) Like I said, I am one of many recovering Catholics. I beliee, but just take different meanings, think outside the box if you will.
3.) Humans make mistakes. That was there way of finding if someone was a leper, but it didn't say to kill them, did it? It was a sickness that made rational people irrational (swine flu to give you an idea). that may be a little off topic, sorry.
1. Yeah it preached of killings, but have we seen any christians these days go out and kill others? Maybe the crazies who we don't associate ourselves with, But preachers never tell us to kill. Its a contradiction in the bible that was placed by corruption.

1) The preachers in the US that preach that gays should be killed, the occasional murder of an abortion doctor in the US ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/01/us-abortion-doctor-shooting-murder ), the killing of children in Africa for witchcraft ( http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/evangelical-christians-in-africa-killing-children-for-being-witches/ ). You could also possibly take into account the recent actions of Israel which many Israeli religous figures support (the Jewish scriptures form the Old Testament, after all).
2) I see the point. Maybe referencing the Jewish scriptures would be more accurate, as they are very carefully hand-copied and must be as accurate as possible. As far as the New Testament goes, It would be best to either find an ancient handwritten copy of it (very difficult), or consult a Gutenberg bible (the first printed copy), of which about 80 remain, some in almost perfect condition.
3) Can't fault you there.

My biggest problem with religions is that they take millenia-old ideals and try to apply them to the real world, often declaring any change as heresy.

I am sorry, what?!

We don't know what has been changed? Having little knowledge of ancient scripture I can not definitively dispute this point but I am strongly inclined to think that it has very little foundation to stand on. However, let consider that hypothetically we do not know what has been going on but it just shows how easily people twist the original message to their liking in order to suit their needs. So the body of knowledge the concept of religion so greatly relies on becomes utterly unreliable and undermines the system as a whole. Also your using pulp fiction to support your point, do you honestly expect us to take that at face value?
I am thinking outside the box, after all, if did not then I wouldn't question the established views of religion would I now...

 

[punkrocker27]

religion or no, he deserves what he got. two wrongs don't make a right, but a dead man doesn't make murder.

Neither does a man in jail.

If the only reason of putting him to death is to keep him from murdering than putting him in jail is just as effective.

prisons are getting overcorwded and if he gets sent there he's probably gonna end up killing another inmate. but that's not really the point. bible or no, he'd still be getting at least a life sentence. i thought that that was what this thread was about.