Texas man faces execution after jurors consult Bible to decide fate

[cuddly_tomato]

Elitemonkeh, there are quite a few things wrong with your response, and they are as follows:

1. Yes thank heavens for the Bible, without it we never would have known murdering people was wrong.

Hey, did he actually say the bible was the source of morality? No? Then what the fuck are you on about?

2. Ah yes, the loony theocracy of not needing a religious book written 2000 years ago by humble scholars* to tell me how to live my life. That does make me a communist. How dare I live in America, which is not a nation of free religion but clearly one of Christianity.

Dolt. He was calling this place, as in the place in the story, a "loony theocracy", and is essentially saying it's so fucked up you should get out. What the shit were you reading?

5. All this coming from the man who calls all those who are against using the Bible "anti-theists". Because if your not Christian, you must be atheist.

Jesus Christ (hurr hurr), you have possibly the worst reading comprehension I have ever seen. He's remarking that this place is full of anti-theists, which it is. He never said that "if you're not christian you're an atheist", as you put it. I seriously have no clue what the fuck you were reading, but it obviously wasn't the same post I was.

There's quite a difference between anti-theist and regular atheist, by the way, which you seem to have missed.

His remark was talking about people clearly having no idea what religion is. I was stating that was ironic because he was saying this thread was full of anti-theists. He was implying that because these people didn't agree with using the Bible as a moral guide in court they were against religion.

And he said those same whack-jobs should get out of this place and find somewhere better to live. You're saying they should get out of the story and more to Korea? What?

No, because I was implying that people who said things like:

"consulting a book which has been proven to be incredibly cruel and full of shit."

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

"If he's to be executed, let him be executed over fair laws, not over an extremely old fiction book."

And the fact that everyone seems to have ignored this vital post which basically shoots down everything anyone has ever said in this thread:-

---snip---

...does make this look like it is being used as another excuse for a bunch of bigots wanting to bash the religious beliefs of everyone across the world because of what happened between 12 morons in a deliberating room.

EDIT: Excellent! A second poster has also managed to actually point out the flaw in most of the ranting going on here.

--snip--

Kudos to both Shynobee and manaman, both of whom earn the coveted title of "Posters serving intelligent pie in the midst of an intellectual famine" and even more coveted $50 prize.

 

[elitemonkeh]

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. Yes thank heavens for the Bible, without it we never would have known murdering people was wrong.

2. Ah yes, the loony theocracy of not needing a religious book written 2000 years ago by humble scholars* to tell me how to live my life. That does make me a communist. How dare I live in America, which is not a nation of free religion but clearly one of Christianity.

3. You got one!

4. And your a comedian!

5. All this coming from the man who calls all those who are against using the Bible "anti-theists". Because if your not Christian, you must be atheist.

1. What does that have to do with anything? I'll answer - nothing. The fact is a few people here are saying that this is all so wrong that a right decision has been reached. I personally don't agree with the decision or the method that was used to reach it, but at least I am not damning someone because I thought they got something right. That is just hypocritical.

2. Nobody said anything like that. I merely said that if anyone hates religion so much and feels it does nothing but harm there is a place on earth you can go and live where religion is outlawed.

3. I am nothing more than a gardener with a very very large garden. Odd that a gardener appears to know more about matters of theology and philosophy than a great many of the people who post here, many of whom are university students or have similar scholorary roles in life.

I am going to level with you on this one seriously - it isn't intelligence that will help you see the truth on this but tolerance and humility. This man was judged because he murdered someone. But nobody has the right to judge another because his beliefs are different.

4. Comedian? Are you going to admit to liking Michael Bay films? If so my next question would be "What the hell is wrong with you?" Have you seen Transformers 2?

5. Refer to 3. Or was the space inbetween 3 and 5 (ie: the time it took for you to type a response to 4 "4. And your a comedian!") too large a time gap for your memory to handle?

I am against using the Bible in a court of law where it is not either being used as evidence or being used for the purposes of making an oath. That is the extent of it. I am all for the Bible being used by Christians in the persuit of their own spiritual beliefs and practices. Anyone who deviates from this (ie: people who think the Bible shouldn't be used for anythin except a "door stop") isn't an atheist but an anti-theist.

1. I suppose i misinterpreted you here. I had the impression that you were implying that people on this forum (who you so kindly labeled as anti-theists) were angered because the court used the Bible to come to the same decision they did: the murdered should be found guilty (as this is the duty of the jury, not the sentence). I was simply stating, in my sarcastic way, that this was such a basic principle, murder being wrong, that the Bible can hardly be accredited for it.

2. That is not what you said it is what you implied. It can be rather hard to interpret implications over the internet, where inflections can be hard to catch.

3. No comment I suppose.

4. I have seen transformers 2 and I don't much care for it. The whole transformers film series revolves around the same two things every film with Megan Fox revolves around.

5. Yes, my disagreeing with you is grounds for attacking my intellect. I'll play along. Yes in the time it took me to type the response I've forgotten everything I was doing. You'll have to excuse my intellectual inferiority.

I suppose this forum was destined to become nothing more than a religious flame war (or a political one). It really all comes down to individual moral principle. Does anyone ever walk away from an internet argument with a changed opinion?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I suppose this forum was destined to become nothing more than a religious flame war (or a political one). It really all comes down to individual moral principle. Does anyone ever walk away from an internet argument with a changed opinion?

Yep. I do all the time. I have just changed my opinion of you on account of that post. I am sorry for being something of a jackass, I think that was due to misunderstandings, and hope you accept my apology. I am a secularist same as you (I am assuming you are secular), but I also vigorously defend the rights of people to practice their religious beliefs without belittlement, scorn, prejudice, or bigotry as long as:-

1. their beliefs don't cause harm to others

and

2. they don't attempt to shove their beliefs down the throats of those who see the world differently.

 

[RexoftheFord]

The link to the source I got this from is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6338320/Texas-man-faces-execution-after-jurors-consult-Bible-to-decide-fate.html

In short, Kristian Oliver burgled a home and killed its owner with the owner's own rifle (beat to death).

When it was his trial just recently, some jurors had copies of the bible with them, using which they controlled his fate.
One of the bible passages used was "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death."

I believe this is highly unconstitutional, and could be Texas just trying to break away from the USA.

What do you think about this?

EDIT: I do also think he should have been sentenced to death, but isn't using the bible as evidence sort of illegal?
It's like if I looked upon Harry Potter books when deciding if someone should die...

The Bible wasn't used as evidence. It was used as a means through which sentence will be determined. Plus, I live in Texas. You're never going to get Texas to follow the swing of the rest of the country, constitution or not. It's just a weird state like that.

This is also the state with the highest number of executions on record, so he would've been put to death anyway, so I really don't care too much if they used the Bible. But yeah, I would've preferred if they had kept with the whole seperation of church and state bit. If this guy's lawyer was half smart, he'd argue against this and get him life.

 

[stabnex]

Oh good, now the thumpers who were carrying the bibles can themselves be put to death for being criminally (not to mention unjustifiably) retarded!

 

[KaiRai]

Well really, they just wanted a reason to validate sending someone like that to death.

Although personally, I'd say what he did pretty much validates it.

 

[McNinja]

So? Just because they had bibles doesn't mean the murderer deserves to live.

 

[elitemonkeh]

I suppose this forum was destined to become nothing more than a religious flame war (or a political one). It really all comes down to individual moral principle. Does anyone ever walk away from an internet argument with a changed opinion?

Yep. I do all the time. I have just changed my opinion of you on account of that post. I am sorry for being something of a jackass, I think that was due to misunderstandings, and hope you accept my apology. I am a secularist same as you (I am assuming you are secular), but I also vigorously defend the rights of people to practice their religious beliefs without belittlement, scorn, prejudice, or bigotry as long as:-

1. their beliefs don't cause harm to others

and

2. they don't attempt to shove their beliefs down the throats of those who see the world differently.

I appreciate that, your intent was not what I thought it was. I simply thought you were attacking the few on this forum who were legitimately trying to make a point or give an opinion without offending any religious groups.

Sorry If I came off as a sarcastic, illiterate jackass.

 

[Yubadias]

To be honest if Texas broke away, 95% of the right wing redneck population would be taken with it so I don't worry too much. Plus 40% of the obese population.

That is unconstitutional, and leave it to hicks who's LEGAL SYSTEM can't think for itself to consult it's country's own FRICKING legislature to be the subject of whether they're leaving the country. The Bible says gays are communists that work for Al Qaeda so DON'T USE IT FOR LEGISLATION.

You have no idea how much that boggles my mind.

 

[Le_Lisra]

well, they would have sentenced him to that anyway I'm sure, it would be within the law there as far as I know..

But that still means that there should be no "passing around" of bibles. If a juror decides to make a gulity verdict (is that the term) because of his religion then fine, thats his private choice as a juror.. but kinda institutionalizing isn't right.

 

[Miles Tormani]

again, I was trying to refute the idea that you would always have to swear upon the bible in a legal situation, you don't. And secondly the Separation of Church and State isn't completely clear. The constitution is open to interpretation, it was a two page document, literally, that we now rely on to organize a vast nation. I interpret the article as, the state cannot intervene in a religion or institute a religion. So, if the jury used the bible as a test to the constitutionality of the Texas constitutions, law for execution, it would be a just decision. But if they used the bible to adjudicate the convicted's guilt, then there is a legal fault in their decision.
My point is, finding one person guilty is not the same as sentencing them to death.

Know this is old now, but I'm responding anyway because someone didn't seem to get part of the message.

First, notice that I never argued the "Don't have to use the Bible to swear oath" part. I have a slight messup in terms of unrelated information, and that's all you're jumping on, despite the fact that I tried going back to the main topic.

Second, the part that I put in bold in your quote. Using the Bible, in court, to test the validity of a law is favoring Christianity (or whichever subgroup that this particular Bible relates to) over other religions, or to use your words, instituting a religion into law, which is a failure to separate church and state.

Finally, your point? Judging from your first post, your point was "nu u dun hav 2 us teh bibel 2 swar n oth," which I never argued; rather, I simply accepted the correction and left that as is. Also, finding someone guilty using scripture that suggests that he should be put to death, in front of the judge, in a court of law, is pretty damn close.

Of course if the jurors simply said "guilty" without pulling out some religion's holy book (I don't care which one), we wouldn't be having this conversation.

...The Bible says gays are communists that work for Al Qaeda...

No, it doesn't. It says something else in the book of Leviticus that really pisses me off, but you're making crap up. ~~

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Gentlemen - please remember that seperation of church and state does not mean that the state has to pretend that religion doesn't exist or try in any way to supress religion. I too disagree with the swearing on the Bible (except for when it is used for Christians taking the oath), but it certainly shouldn't be removed altogether. Most people in the USA are Christians, and it makes sense that most of those swear on the Bible when in court. I just wish other religions were acknowledged (Muslims should swear on the Qoran for instance), and that those without religious beliefs could be given some kind of alternate oath, "I swear on my honor as a man/woman or something".

Of course if the jurors simply said "guilty" without pulling out some religion's holy book (I don't care which one), we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The only evidence we have that this took place is the words of Amnesty Internation, who got the info from the prisoners defense lawyers. My 2 pence worth is that they are using this legal technicality to make an argument to call for a reprieve, or possibly even call for a mis-trial.

And good luck to them. I don't like the death penalty.

The Bible says gays are communists that work for Al Qaeda so DON'T USE IT FOR LEGISLATION.

Next time you visit this other planet where you read their Bible, can you send me back a postcard? Thanks.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

So you're complaining because they used the bible to correctly punish someone?

... I don't get it...

 

[ygetoff]

The use of the Bible was improper in a courtroom setting; he should be put off of death row and into a high-security area for life without parole (I don't believe in the death penalty anyway).

 

[Sporky111]

EDIT: I do also think he should have been sentenced to death, but isn't using the bible as evidence sort of illegal?
It's like if I looked upon Harry Potter books when deciding if someone should die...

You are asking for serious trouble if you compare the Bible to Harry Potter. I'm Christian but not nearly a zealot, and I took offense to that. Just think a bit next time, we don't need any more anons saying the first offensive thing that comes to their mind.

On topic, I don't think this was in any way legal. If his lawyer has half a brain they'll take it back to court on the grounds that the Jury seemingly didn't consult the evidence.

 

[Hokutan]

Here's my philosophy on murder: "An eye for an eye." If you take a life for anything other than self-defense, yours should be taken as well.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"-Ghandi

 

[Tdc2182]

Well, seeing how he would have gotten the death sentence anyway than I don't think there is much to ***** about. The only reason this sounds inhumane is because it is coming from the bible which brings me to this: Are you only posting this topic to start up more religion bashing? The guy beat someone to death in their own house.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

This is ridiculous.

The man murdered someone in cold blood. He didn't just SHOOT the person who was DEFENDING their home, a situation YOU or I could very likely find ourselves in... he BEAT the man to DEATH with the rifle. A bullet would have been merciful.

Secondly, you would think that having a Bible would AID in the jurors SPARING his life. For all the heavy-handed rhetoric of the OLD testament, MOST modern day Christians, ESPECIALLY southern Baptists and Catholics the two MAJOR religions in Texas (I'm from San Antonio, I know whereof I speak), they follow most of the NEW testament of teaching. Remember, Jesus tore DOWN the institution of the church and rebuilt it, signifying an END to the OLD Testament laws for the most part and absolving man of the burden of sin. (assuming you believe in Christianity).

The Bible teaches, no.. JESUS teaches to FORGIVE. Period. Vengeance is the LORDS not mans. Now some people do take some other elements to justify the death penalty, and I'm not going to argue against it, considering that isnt the point here. The point is, if the use of a Bible by jurors in their personal deliberations was ANYTHING, it was a THREAT to this man recieving a death sentence. Most Christians would seek to err on the side of life. The whole stereotype of redneck Christians marching around shooting holes in things cause God will sort em out is just that.. stereotypical ignorant garbage perpetuated by people who don't know a damn thing about what they speak. It's about as ignorant as saying all Muslims believe in stoning people to death and women can be honor-killed for the slightest of reasons.
All followers of Islam are not TERRORISTS. All Catholic Priests are not CHILD MOLESTERS.

People need to use some common sense in these discussions, honestly. Just because you don't agree with someone's religious beliefs gives you no right to belittle them or villify them.

Lastly, it is understood and accepted that a Jury of your peers will be comprised of people who bring their personal VALUES and BELIEFS with them, providing unique perspectives sampled from all walks of life. Just because a guy isn't carrying his BIBLE doesn't mean he's not thinking like a Christian or using his faith and beliefs to guide his decisions and actions. Just because a jury member is a Satanist or an Athiest doesn't disqualify them from bringing their beliefs and logic to the deliberation as well. I'm willing to bet more than a few scumbags have been spared the TRUE sentences they DESERVED by soft-hearted hippies, peace-loving Muslims, or forgiving Christians who just couldn't bring themselves to vote to end a human life.

At any rate, I remember this case, and honestly I'm not certain why this is news. This guy did not show any remorse then, I'm sure he only cares about what he did NOW that his number is up and he is facing the end of his life far sooner than he was prepared for. No one wants to be watching the sand run out of their hourglass, but he should have been thinking about that when he was beating someone's Father/brother/son/lover/friend to death in his own home.

And thats all I gots ta say 'bout that.

 

[Tdc2182]

Would you have been just as mad if they had quoted the ending of Boondock saints...... actually that would have been cool... But its not my point. Those who kill should die, and I don't care what book you quote.

That would have been so awesome.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

EDIT: I do also think he should have been sentenced to death, but isn't using the bible as evidence sort of illegal?
It's like if I looked upon Harry Potter books when deciding if someone should die...

You are asking for serious trouble if you compare the Bible to Harry Potter. I'm Christian but not nearly a zealot, and I took offense to that. Just think a bit next time, we don't need any more anons saying the first offensive thing that comes to their mind.

That is what is known as "loading the question" and made the thread completely worthless from the very start. If the op had intended a serious discussion he wouldn't have started the very first post with a conclusion.

This thread wasn't intended as a serious debate or discussion, but as a rant and bait for Christians such as yourself. As such I ask you (and other Christians reading and being offended) to ignore idiots who are not worth your time or energy, and also remember that not all atheists are like that particular... individual. Most atheists are much the same as most Christians - happy to just lead lives without going out of their way to bother and belittle other people for being a bit different.