You didn't read my comment. I was addressing the fact that they used the Bible in order to decide the fate of that man. What if they start using the bible in order to decide the faith of other people? That would be plain insane. That's what I was addressing.crepesack said:
Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate
- Thread starter GoldenCondor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I will quote the first amendment just to clarify....GoldenCondor said:
"CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging... grievances."
Later thanks to the 14th amendment this was applied to state governments.
No where does it say church and state are separate, later in court rulings it was decided that this also meant the government couldn't show favoritism towards any established religions. thus why we don't have organized prayer in schools, or other government sponsored activities.
All the first amendment truly means is that you can't outlaw religions just because you don't like or agree with them. All religions have an equal right to practice their beliefs (free exercise clause) or for people to found religions (establishment clause).
Thus if these people want to site religious texts as a moral guide there is no problem with that. They didn't base their decision on what the bible says, they simply referred to it as a moral guide. After all they HAVE THAT RIGHT! via the free exercise clause.
As to the exorcism thing what's your point? It was thrown out of court...
Well, it is Texas. I mean, honestly. Is anyone surprised? This is exactly why sane people avoid that state.
so if I leave a can on the sidewalk and someone trips over it and breaks his/her neck I get executed for it? and if anyone throws something a someone in a fit of rage and it makes the other person stumble back and say fall of a balcony the person throwing the object gets executed for it?Rudeboy4360 said:
OT: the man should get a new trial cause killer or no killer he deserves a fair trial without inputs from religious nutjobs.
Umm its not like they used it as evidence, they just used it to help them make their decision on the subject.
Bible aside, it was a fair ruling, regardless of whether or not you believe in Christianity.
If you take someone else's life in anything other than self defense, then yours is forfeit. Is there something wrong with that train of thought?
If you take someone else's life in anything other than self defense, then yours is forfeit. Is there something wrong with that train of thought?
while i agree he should get a fair trial those things you mentioned are simply examples of negligence and yes they make you responsible, the first one indirectly the second one directlycabooze said:
religion or no, he deserves what he got. two wrongs don't make a right, but a dead man doesn't make murder.
This thread is certainly informative. It has brought to light five particular thoughts.
1. A lot of anti-theist whack jobs posting here are really struggling to come to terms with the fact the Bible was used to make a decision they actually agree with (take a shower if it makes you feel better lads).
2. Those same whack jobs won't put their money where their mouth is by getting out of these loony theocracies and finding somewhere better [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1131421.stm#facts] to live [http://www.korea-dpr.com/].
3. Jurors shouldn't be referring religious documents such the Bible except where they are important as evidence, as this does weaken the position of the law which should be based purely on what can be seen and used in a court, not what people think or believe (justice is supposed to be blind for a reason).
4. This is yet another reason I dislike the death penalty being employed in anything other than cases where the defendant is found guilty of being Michael Bay.
5. Further irrefutable proof that The Escapist just can't leave the topic of religion well alone inspite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that very few people here willing to post about it actually know anything about it.
1. A lot of anti-theist whack jobs posting here are really struggling to come to terms with the fact the Bible was used to make a decision they actually agree with (take a shower if it makes you feel better lads).
2. Those same whack jobs won't put their money where their mouth is by getting out of these loony theocracies and finding somewhere better [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1131421.stm#facts] to live [http://www.korea-dpr.com/].
3. Jurors shouldn't be referring religious documents such the Bible except where they are important as evidence, as this does weaken the position of the law which should be based purely on what can be seen and used in a court, not what people think or believe (justice is supposed to be blind for a reason).
4. This is yet another reason I dislike the death penalty being employed in anything other than cases where the defendant is found guilty of being Michael Bay.
5. Further irrefutable proof that The Escapist just can't leave the topic of religion well alone inspite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that very few people here willing to post about it actually know anything about it.
It doesn't matter how they came to their conclusion, he murdered someone which warrants his death.