Church & State separate ? Not in Colorado

Morrigoon · 03-29-2005, 08:56 AM

Seems to me that you're bringing in jurors to use their judgement. Included in their judgement process are all their modes of thinking, all the influences in their lives up to that point, INCLUDING their religion. Now a judge is telling them that they're wrong based on their religion.

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

€uroMeinke · 03-29-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

If only...

€uroMeinke · 03-29-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

If only...

Motorboat Cruiser · 03-29-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others.

Would that be the same government that is pushing for faith-based initiatives, only allowing abstinence-only education, limiting stem-cell research, and appointing an attorney general that wouldn't so much as dance because of his religious beliefs?

Interesting take on things.

scaeagles · 03-29-2005, 02:45 PM

An interesting tidbit I got in a political emailing that I receive daily -

" In Colorado, jurors in death penalty cases are specifically
told to make a moral judgment, but, the majority on the Colorado Supreme
Court said the Bible was an improper outside influence and an "extraneous
text." The Bible is extraneous to making a moral judgment?

In contrast, the two dissenting judges said the majority was confusing the
Bible with outside influences, such as newspaper articles and television
programs, which are normally to be avoided when a jury deliberates.
Rather, they wrote, "The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted
either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general
knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court sanctioned moral
assessment." "

If the instructions when assessing the death penalty say jurors are to make a "moral judgement" (which I've been unable to confirm, but trust the source of my emailing), then referencing a religious text should not be out of bounds.

Prudence · 03-29-2005, 09:39 PM

The majority in this decision was likely trying to make the point, as GD mentioned already, that the difference is bringing in the written word, not just a recitation of previously learned verses. Conversely, the dissent is saying that it's just the written word of what they already believe, so what's the big deal. It's a tough call. I'd probably side with the majority, though, and draw a bright line prohibiting consulting any outside materials.

Note that does not prohibit one from drawing on one's own memory and experiences, including memory of bible verses, church teachings, gossip from last week's coven meeting, etc... But as a culture the written word is still seems more powerful to some, and there's a difference between saying that verse such and such says this and having the actual document on hand.

As my dad would say, subtle but significant.

03-29-2005, 08:56 AM	#1
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Seems to me that you're bringing in jurors to use their judgement. Included in their judgement process are all their modes of thinking, all the influences in their lives up to that point, INCLUDING their religion. Now a judge is telling them that they're wrong based on their religion. IMHO, Atheism is becoming dogmatic in and of itself, as its own "religion". And the government is starting to endorse it to the exclusion of others. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

03-29-2005, 02:45 PM	#5
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	An interesting tidbit I got in a political emailing that I receive daily - " In Colorado, jurors in death penalty cases are specifically told to make a moral judgment, but, the majority on the Colorado Supreme Court said the Bible was an improper outside influence and an "extraneous text." The Bible is extraneous to making a moral judgment? In contrast, the two dissenting judges said the majority was confusing the Bible with outside influences, such as newspaper articles and television programs, which are normally to be avoided when a jury deliberates. Rather, they wrote, "The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court sanctioned moral assessment." " If the instructions when assessing the death penalty say jurors are to make a "moral judgement" (which I've been unable to confirm, but trust the source of my emailing), then referencing a religious text should not be out of bounds.
	Submit to Quotes

03-29-2005, 09:39 PM	#6
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	The majority in this decision was likely trying to make the point, as GD mentioned already, that the difference is bringing in the written word, not just a recitation of previously learned verses. Conversely, the dissent is saying that it's just the written word of what they already believe, so what's the big deal. It's a tough call. I'd probably side with the majority, though, and draw a bright line prohibiting consulting any outside materials. Note that does not prohibit one from drawing on one's own memory and experiences, including memory of bible verses, church teachings, gossip from last week's coven meeting, etc... But as a culture the written word is still seems more powerful to some, and there's a difference between saying that verse such and such says this and having the actual document on hand. As my dad would say, subtle but significant. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes