Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
John Prezioso

Jury Consulted Bible During Sentencing Phase

Recommended Posts

Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

quote:

I am just sitting here shaking my head, I have nothing more to say...


It WAS only a sarcastic question, which showed the validity of that which I stated earlier: It is persecution of an ideology which creates its proliferation,,,NOT it's acceptance.

The Acceptance of that ONE christian ideology, also accepted persecution for for those outside that specific ideological base...thus, with each SPLIT, came persecution of those on each side of the split..and the percieved persecution was actively pursued from both sides ,as well.

Obvious compounded results, are observed throughout the history of the early christian church....CLEAR up to the END of the inquisitiion...a radical CHRISTIAN ideology which only ended, LESS than 150 years ago.


Enough Street, you talk a good game, but you really are ignorant of the facts.

The Christian Church was persecuted, then Constantine MADE christianity the official religion of Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church was created.

NO persecution there, when it became the STATE religion, it's population skyrocketed.

IT'S ACCEPTANCE is what made it strong, NOT it's persecution.

The reformation, the crusades etc ALL stemmed from the fact that it was a major religion of the time, and yes, each sect persecuted the others.

That is the way of religion.

One group has all the answers, therefore the others are heretical, Islam is going through the same nonsense, ACCEPT that in it's Holy Book, KILLING the infidel is acceptable, as a matter of fact it is a HOLY duty, just as it was for Christians during the crusades.

Christianity has matured over the centuries, sure there are some nuts in there, but they are a VERY SMALL minority, BUT, a majority of Islam believes that the bombings of civilian targets was OK, as a matter of fact, it is AUTHORIZED by the Quran. SO, to call Christians primitive, and then to say stupid things about Islam terrorists is just about insane.

You seem to realize the historical context of the crusades, the reformations, the inquisitions, etc, but you completely FAIL to see that Islam wants NOTHING less then world domination, and will kill ALL of us, if that is what it takes to do it.

You seem to think that it is some kind of guerilla war, when in fact, it a religious war coming back from a really long timeout.

You see history, but you do not see it being repeated in the present by a different group of people.

Your intolerance of religious beliefs is unbelievable to me, then again, A LOT of your emotional strewn thought processes are unbelievable to me, along with the conspiracy kook stuff just to add to that mystery.

THe fact that you fail to understand the TRUE scale of this war, tells me far more about you then I really care to know.....

NOW, that I have taken the thread COMPLETELY off topic, let us put it BACK on topic.

AS A CITIZEN, NO law HAS to be abided by by a juror, a juror can look at a law that has been broken by a defendant and say, the law is insane, NOT guilty.

I don't care what the local laws say, I don't care what the prosecutors want, I don't care what the judge has to say about it.

If I make it on to a jury, and find the defendant NOT guilty due to the overreaching, or the stupidity of the law, it is my right and my responsibility to do so, and if I look to the bible for guidance, then it should NOT have ANY effect on the outcome of the trial or be used to retry or anything else. It is MY right as a JUROR, to use anything that I feel will allow me to come to just and right decision.

Be it a law book, a biblem a Torah, A quran, the constitution, the 10 commandments, WHATEVER. The government is SERVILE to it's citizens, and if the states case is lost because one of it's citizens chose to look at a bible, then so be it, the state LOST, end of case, just as the defense would have to live with the decision as well.

The difference, the state CANNOT retry the case, whereas the defense can take it to a higher court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

The reformation, the crusades etc ALL stemmed from the fact that it was a major religion of the time, and yes, each sect persecuted the others.

That is the way of religion.

If the above statement is true, it would completely illogical and down right assinine to allow THAT base, to be integrated within judicial process and implimentation of the consequence of that judicial process.

quote:

One group has all the answers, therefore the others are heretical, Islam is going through the same nonsense, ACCEPT that in it's Holy Book, KILLING the infidel is acceptable, as a matter of fact it is a HOLY duty, just as it was for Christians during the crusades.

I agree, AND: if what you say IS true, then the WHOLE arguement that... "the persecution of christians, had no bearing on the proliferation and the exponential growth" ...is null.

THE CRUSADES, was ALL about one group of christians integrated within government rule of law, pronouncing judgement on others...biased on a radical religeous interpretation of the teachings of christ. This is the point I made earlier.

quote:

Christianity has matured over the centuries, sure there are some nuts in there, but they are a VERY SMALL minority, BUT, a majority of Islam believes that the bombings of civilian targets was OK, as a matter of fact, it is AUTHORIZED by the Quran. SO, to call Christians primitive, and then to say stupid things about Islam terrorists is just about insane.

The above is also true, to a point. All you have to do is take out the word "MAJORITY of islam" and replace it with "MINORITY of islam" and your argument of facts would not be twisted into a mis representation of those facts.

quote:

You seem to realize the historical context of the crusades, the reformations, the inquisitions, etc, but you completely FAIL to see that Islam wants NOTHING less then world domination, and will kill ALL of us, if that is what it takes to do it.

You seem to think that it is some kind of guerilla war, when in fact, it a religious war coming back from a really long timeout.


The above is nothing more than PARANOIA promoted by the neo-con propaghanda machine. The SAME paranoia which spurred 90% of ALL atrocity committed by religeously integrated governments, groups, and individuals throughout history.

FACT: THERE ARE LEGITIMATE POLITICAL, ECONOMICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL reasons behind this conflict. The MINORITY of the islam who are radical enough to justify their actions through their twisted interpretation of the QURAN and are merely ignorant pawns, being used by those using what is readily availiable to combat an overwhelming opponant. RADICALLY RELIGEOUS ideaology is availiable amongst all religeons, ESPECIALLY within the CHRISTIAN philosophy. And are minute, in relation to the whole of either philosophy.

quote:

Your intolerance of religious beliefs is unbelievable to me, then again, A LOT of your emotional strewn thought processes are unbelievable to me, along with the conspiracy kook stuff just to add to that mystery.


I have NO intolerance of religious beliefs!!! As long as the rediculous interpretation they proclaim does not AFFECT ME.

The "Three F rule", used to make these laws:(i.e. fair, flexable, and final)... cannot LOOSE it's "flexability" because some moron wants to impose their interpretation of morality on others.

I just dont want some jim jones or some other ignorant christian crackpot, putting me or someone else in a prison; because, I refuse to shave my head... or they choose some other lifestyle than ole BUSHs ...jeesh!! Further more, your reference to me being some conspiratorial buff, is unsubstantiated garbage.

quote:

NOW, that I have taken the thread COMPLETELY off topic, let us put it BACK on topic.

I dont see how it can be OFF topic, when the whole articale revolves around the concept of wheather a jurer can use a RELIGIOUSLY biased book, in reference to deciding the fate of an individual being charged by the state.

ESPECIALLY when there are RECOGNIZED religeons within this NATION who do NOT even recognize the validity of the book to start with...much less live their lives, by ANY INDIVIDUAL'S interpretation of it. Again, there is NO basis, for integrating the religeous asperations of any group or individual into our judicial process.

The point made clearly, as to the why..and on a broad front. NOT "off topic", in the least. I believe, that is just an excuse being used to stop the presentation; as to the "WHY" of my position, and to justify your claims that I hi-jack threads.

And THIS is; because, I integrate the WHOLE of the picture..keeping a solid foundation for ALL the positions to which I adhere...equal in their logic and reason. Founded in a solid and "across the board" application of that unified logical base.

This is something I have yet to see, from most who post here, who uphold your type of ideaological reasoning.

quote:

AS A CITIZEN, NO law HAS to be abided by by a juror, a juror can look at a law that has been broken by a defendant and say, the law is insane, NOT guilty.

I don't care what the local laws say, I don't care what the prosecutors want, I don't care what the judge has to say about it.

How you can not see the above statement, to be as radical as ANY radical(anti-government)statement ever made by a citizen.....

and how you can not see the "PRO NEO-CON" (i.e.pro-bushy baby)agenda for the anti constitutional progression it is consistantly proving itself to be....

And how you can denounce being a christian while simultaniously promoting christians to hold a theosophical belief which is in direct conflict, not only to the teachings of christ, but are in direct conformity to the atrocities against freedom ,which this constitution was designed to abate.....

I am sorry jag. but there is NO consistancy to your pattern, except pure and unequivical rebuttle of logic.

quote:

If I make it on to a jury, and find the defendant NOT guilty due to the overreaching, or the stupidity of the law, it is my right and my responsibility to do so, and if I look to the bible for guidance, then it should NOT have ANY effect on the outcome of the trial or be used to retry or anything else. It is MY right as a JUROR, to use anything that I feel will allow me to come to just and right decision.

Be it a law book, a biblem a Torah, A quran, the constitution, the 10 commandments, WHATEVER. The government is SERVILE to it's citizens, and if the states case is lost because one of it's citizens chose to look at a bible, then so be it, the state LOST, end of case, just as the defense would have to live with the decision as well.

The difference, the state CANNOT retry the case, whereas the defense can take it to a higher court.


I must say I admire your position here, and agree 100% with your decision to admonish the law in as objective a way as possible.

more power to you.

but the LAST paragraph is ONLY true by semantics...you know it and so do I. If they want you...they can find a law which can be applied to hang you..If a jurer is against the whole of the path being pursued..he WILL be dismissed, and a more suitable replacement situated in his seat.

there are over 168000 pages of fine print "of law and revision of law" EVERY YEAR. (sarcasim>> we need more)

It would take 100 LARGE firms, about 5 years to decipher those made in one year.

And 75% of the american citizens cannot afford the fees required to appeal ANY decision...much less get it to the supreme court...which will only refuse to consider it, if they choose.

hell of legal system...Probably why we have:

FACT: MORE PEOPLE PER CAPITA INCARCERATED THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! (China included!)

The saddest part of all, is that the system acknowledges the percentage of innocently incarcerated to be near 25% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, lets talk again, about who is awake, and who is asleep, and to what degree!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face it Street. You are an offensive, antagonistic person. You can not have a civil discussion without incessantly bombarding people with:

1) Proof of how much better you are than everyone else

2) reason upon reason as to how if someone does not believe EXACTLY as you do, they are a Nazi, a neandrathal, A heretic etc. You deal in asinine absolutes with you at the center safely tucked away beyond reproach.

I say this not to attack you (and I am sure a hypocritical, heretical, primitive Nazi like myself couldn't ever offend anyone as superior as yourself) but to enlighten you to something you are obviously painfully oblivious to.

It is not enough for you to just say that you are right. You have to demean every aspect of everyone else's core beliefs in order to make your point.

What is so sad is that I sense a powerful intellect behind all of the hate speech and vitriol, and probably would find a great deal of interest in debating you on FACTS. Alas you are too much of a child, and that is not possible. (And yes, I am aware of your age, but as we know, age and maturity are often inversely proportional...) You might try looking at a history of NOMAD's posts for how to debate from your position without being demeaning and insulting.

In closing, I would like to apologize to everyone insulted by STREET's hysterical ranting, as I feel partially responsible since I was the one who opened this thread. In the future, I will be ignoring Street's posts, and recommend that others offended by his childishness do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

As usual when street starts posting I start receiving complaints about his abusive and over the top method of posting what he calls stating an opinion. This topic has been closed until further review by forum administrators

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am re-opening the topic. Street, you have been temp banned. You've had too many warnings already.

Carry on guys and if the offensive posts need to be deleted and admin/mod will do so shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

The above is nothing more than PARANOIA promoted by the neo-con propaghanda machine. The SAME paranoia which spurred 90% of ALL atrocity committed by religeously integrated governments, groups, and individuals throughout history.

FACT: THERE ARE LEGITIMATE POLITICAL, ECONOMICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL reasons behind this conflict. The MINORITY of the islam who are radical enough to justify their actions through their twisted interpretation of the QURAN and are merely ignorant pawns, being used by those using what is readily availiable to combat an overwhelming opponant. RADICALLY RELIGEOUS ideaology is availiable amongst all religeons, ESPECIALLY within the CHRISTIAN philosophy. And are minute, in relation to the whole of either philosophy.


Street, this is the ONLY part of your post that I am going to respond to.

That whole statement was TOTAL and utter nonsense.

Islam has started a religious war, that had been basically lost for over 300 years.

They have rekindled that war, and MOST Muslims are quite happy about it. THAT IS A FACT.

There are NO LEGITIMATE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIOLOGICAL reasons behind this conflict.

It is religious war at it's base, Israel has tried to make peace with the Muslims in Palestine for years, yet EVERY time they come close to peace, terrorist attacks occur.

There are over 30 different conflicts around the world, EVERY ONE OF THEM IS MUSLIMS, KILLING their neighbors.

So, sorry Street, the WHOLE picture looks a LOT different then the little piece that you seem to be focusing on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appreciate it if folks refrained from posting to people who no longer have the ability to post here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

I would appreciate it if folks refrained from posting to people who no longer have the ability to post here.

Sorry SC, you're right, I will refrain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on Jag.

Despite his offensive and insulting posts, Street did make one argument I can consider a valid point. I have fielded this argument many times before.

What he was saying specifically about the death penalty is that in his view, any Christian that views the death penalty and war as viable choices is warping the Bible's message of "Thou shalt not kill" and a parallel can be drawn between that kind of "interpretation of convenience" and what Islamo-fascist murderers do with the Koran when they blow up innocent children in the name of Allah (or so they claim).

To take this view, one would have to subscribe to the erroneous idea that the Bible prohibits death as a form of punishment. When a man kills another man out of anger, it is murder. It is such because the killing was done without due process ; in other words, simply for satisfaction and revenge with no regard for justice. In a legal framework, due process comes in the form of a jury of one's peers with a judge presiding ensuring the Constitution (and NOT necessarily the LAW) is followed. In a national view, due process comes in the form of a legal proclamation of war by the nation's leaders once cause for hostility has been established.

Absolutely NO parallel can be drawn with terrorism because of the simple fact that it is driven by hate and fanaticism, with evil at its core. The terrorists are bloodthirsty animals who know they are evil. Anyone who tries to claim any sort of social or economic reasons for terrorism is only falling prey to their evil deception imo.

Anyway, regardless of anyone's stance, I hope this and future discussions can be conducted with a mutual respect between us.

EDIT: SC, I posted this before I saw your request. I am sorry if it is not in compliance with your wishes and will refrain in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Right on Jag.

... any Christian that views the death penalty and war as viable choices is warping the Bible's message of "Thou shalt not kill" ...

If I may interject something here slightly off topic. I was once a staunch supporter of the death penalty, but there is only ONE problem that I have with it. We have a FALLIBLE system, run by human beings that are prone to mistakes. There are many stories and even movies made out of people's lives that have been nearly destroyed by death sentences, that at the last moment, it turned out that the person charged was innocent.

I would have to say that considering the fact that there are many occasions where we could be wrong, I would say that I now oppose the death penalty. IMO we cannot have a sentence that is so permanent, in the hands of people that have the ability to make mistakes and convict the wrong person. You can't "Take Back" an executed death sentence and a dead man can't be set free to right a wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting stance Darkling, and it indeed has merit. I know I for one would NOT like being wrongfully accused and put to death when I was innocent.

The fallibility of the system is undeniable, as it set up by man. I too cringe at the thought of an innocent man being put to death.

Some points to consider:

- Our punitive system is based on the premise that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be punished. This would be a tough concept for someone who does not believe in God, as they must see this as a guilty man completely escaping judgement. Alas, we know that ultimately, EVERYONE faces true judgement...

- In my study of the issue, I have found that in every case I have reviewed of an innocent man being put to death, a key piece of evidence or testimony was withheld by an important witness or investigator. Information of the kind that would have completely changed the outcome of the trial. In my opinion, the individual involved of the withholding of evidence or testimony, not the system, is the cause of the error. In my estimation, these individuals are guilty of murder just as if they would have shot the accused to death themselves.

Admittedly, being Catholic, I am not in keeping with Roman Catholic dogma on this, as the Pope has stated that capital punishment should be discouraged in any society. The Church is against the death penalty. I usually defer to the Vatican on these issues, but this is one of few issues where I differ from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×