It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Death Penalty Tossed Over Bible Verses

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Wrong thread

[edit on 28-3-2005 by sardion2000]




posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Separation of Church and state meerly ensures that one religion or ideology does not influence affairs of government that is for the people and by the people etc etc.


Your definition is absolutely true FredT,

but seperation of church and state dosnt exist in America, and it is odd for a higher jury than the ones who made the original ruling, to reverse the ruling when there was nothing wrong with the way the original jury came to their conclusion



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
wait a minute what differance did it make that they read the bible? if they had decided to follow that commandment would they not have sentanced him to two hours of rape? eye for eye tooth for tooth.= rape for rape. i would think that is exactly why that passage got discussed i imagine someone brought that up in regards to the sentance being death. in ORDER to try and save the guys life. the fact that they passed the deth sentance seems to point out they decided to follow the law of the land.

the fact that the higher court uses this to stay the death sentance is absurde. now if it had been used to sentance him to death because the guy had gotten life that may have made some sense.

why should a jurror not be alowed to consult their holy book? after all the sentanceing of death is a moral decision. they have to weigh the fact of is the crime worth the punishment. it is not something that should be decided lightly.in all honesty rape and imprisonment sound like a just punishment in this case. but then again the guy might enjoy it. justice was served in this case religion had nothing to do with it.

does this atitude mean that i should not pray that the lord help me see the truth in a case and for guidence in a sentanceing? mabe no one should be alowed to be on a jury because their personal beliefs or religion could get in the way of justice. get real. this is just another case of people who refuse to believe in a supream being trying to outlaw believers. i will be honest the fact that these people would even think to read the bible for guidence means that they would still have taken God's word into accopunt regaurdless. the only way to exclude God is to exclude the beliver, would that not be against the law in of itself. it would be unlawfull because that would be discrimination.

don't condem the bible in this case. if you wish condem the institution that was behind a bad decision. the fault is theirs not the bible's.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Ahh, something new to moan about in our great country; make that two things. The death penalty has been going on for millenia, so I'd say it's time to get over whether or not it is right. And unless the judge heard a juror say something that implied they were making their decision from something they read in the bible it is wrong to assume the jury was biased in some way. One could say an attorney who springs forth something from the bible is also causing jury bias if that is the case. Who cares if one or more persons in this jury even thought they might change their minds about someones death penalty being issued or not just because they read from the bible. There's no subliminal message in the bible when you open it that says "the decision is not yours to kill this person", we make our own decisions no matter what we read. And by the way, the correct translation from hebrew is not "Thou shalt not kill", it's "Thou shalt not murder". Ask any person who has studied ancient hebrew in depth and they will agree. There's always more to a situation than people know about. A favorite line from a japaname movie is "Over simplify and you breed in weakness". If one way or the other the subject of this blog is based on someones assumption of what WOULD HAVE happened IF, then it is flawed. Never assume you know everything about a subject or a person until you know something as fact. If you end up being wrong, even if nothing is lost either way; you still have lost the moment to face value posterity. It will continue to be my wish that people in this world instead of moaning about something they wished was different, to do something about that which they disagree by being smart enough to avoid the thing or keep it from happening in the first place. As long as one says to themselves "what can I do" noone will do anything but change the face of life they are used to looking at with the efforts of a drone.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by existence]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Even without the Bible in hand, the juror/s could still use its principles to help make their decision on the case....



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
wait a minute what differance did it make that they read the bible?


Because jurors are supposed to make their decisions based on the evidence and the law that is why?


why should a jurror not be alowed to consult their holy book?


They can consult their bible, just not during deliberations in the juror's room.



don't condem the bible in this case. if you wish condem the institution that was behind a bad decision. the fault is theirs not the bible's.



I have seen no one condemn the bible you are missing the point here. The bible has no place in the jurors room, only laws, notes and trial transscripts are allowed.




posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
so whats your point daboga?

nevermind, i misread your post, sorry.

[edit on 28-3-2005 by Ignignot]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   


They can consult their bible, just not during deliberations in the juror's room.


Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Funny, I don't see the words " except in a jury room" or anything to that effect anywhere.

I see the words "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which mean I have the right to practice my religion when ever and where ever I see fit.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Political power in the hands of religion has always, always lead to tyranny. Political power in the hands of religion will always lead to tyranny.

Remember the last time the christians were in control? If not, let me remind you, It was called the dark ages. It was called the dark ages for a reason.

Want a more up to date version? Not a problem

Look at the middle east right now and see what is happening in the countries where religion is in control. What do you see? Religious tyranny in the name of Allah.

The middle east is going thru its own version of the dark ages. In time they too will learn that government and religion, when mixed, is a poison to society.

Religion belongs in the home and in the churches. It has no business what-so-ever in the laws of the land.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   


Remember the last time the christians were in control?


Yes I do. As a matter of fact I cannot remember a time during my life when christians were not in control of America.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I find myself obsessing on the irony of a jury laying down the death penalty after reading the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" verses. What a diligent jury not to let that pesky 6th commandment get in the way of real justice!



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Fred reality check *bing* so you run from Bible to Bible, depending on what verse you want to grab and then take them out of context! Shame on you Fred- you are doing exactly the same the review court 'thinks' might have happened.

So here you are Fred, leading another parade- this time in one of your own NEWS posts against Christians. Why is this Fred? Other than being an acknowledged atheist why the anti-Christian parades?

I'll just pick ONE of your 'quotes'

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)


What does it REALLY say without Fred-twist&twirl?
Chap 17 Deu. refers to sacrifices to God-
    It prohibits once more that form of insult to God which consists in offering to Him a blemished sacrifice.

'Deu 17:1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.'

Let's hop down to verse 12-
    This really starts at verse 8 and ends at 13. This refers to inferior judges that did not feel able to decide satisfactorily, and which accordingly they remitted to their superiors.

    A layman and a ecclesiastical person. Why the ecclesiastical? They could read, write and had some formalized education.

You (Fred) twisted the verse to mean something it clearly is not referring to. Why is that Fred? As an atheist why even use the Bible as a source? It is clear you 'no comprende' and provably don't want to.

Why the death sentence for fornication? Why? You Fred are a medical person, you should understand sexually transmitted diseases. These people of the Old Testament did NOT have a neighborhood ER to run to or a pharmacist that could give them a cure for 'crotch rot.' These were wanderer's in the desert that died because of infections.

What would you do to prevent your wife from bringing home a disease that could kill you? You would make the punishment so severe that the likelihood of that occurrence would be remote. You know- AIDs. What is the punishment for deliberately infecting someone with AIDs?

Stay with Yahoo-News, the Bible is not your type of source.
.

.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Dogma alert. Joe, please, just because I am an athiest, does not mean I cannot use it for reference puposes. BTW, that is but a few of the 'Death sentances" as outlined in the book.

Taken out of context? Yes we no doubt could have a lively debate on that subject, but if people are going to use it to determine punishment then who is to say they will not take it out of context?



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
What does it REALLY say without Fred-twist&twirl?


What exactly are you refering too here???

From the New Living Translation



12Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. 13Then everyone will hear about it and be afraid to act so arrogantly.
bible.gospelcom.net...


And so let it be written so let it be done....




8"Suppose a case arises in a local court that is too hard for you to decide--for instance, whether someone is guilty of murder or only of manslaughter, or a difficult lawsuit, or a case involving different kinds of assault. Take such cases to the place the LORD your God will choose,


Hmm in the event a jury cannot convict leave it in gods hands?

[edit on 3/28/05 by FredT]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Taken out of context? Yes we no doubt could have a lively debate on that subject, but if people are going to use it to determine punishment then who is to say they will not take it out of context?


I agree with you the bible should not be the base to make decisions on death penalty cases.

That is what the "evidence" is all about.

And for the bible references, well I have to add that the many versions of the bible in existence had been exploited many times by the so called experts of the "word of God"

I am not a religious follower and the bible while an interesting book of the history of a nation and then the book of the Christian followers is not what I call a very reliable book for punishment in this time and age.

That's what evidence is used for.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Fred, you know better than that-
'leave it in God's hands'

You know I don't buy that line.

Free will and 'unto Ceasar'

The Bible in the jury room is a puzzle to me- juries are ONLY supposed to have approved reference material. I can't see a judge approving ANY Bible for reference in a trial of non-religious matters.

The case clearly (to me) either should be re-tried or dismissed and the guy freed. I wouldn't want him freed, but a re-trial would certainly be in order with a few jurors and a judge spending some time in the bar-hotel. The bias to the defendant is obvious. He did NOT get a fair trial.
.

.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I have to agree with you Marg, there are over 17 versions of English language bibles alone. Add to that that the international versions and mama mia
. That was the point I was belaboring to make here.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
The jurors in this case copied down verses from the bible, including those from the Old Testament that included the "eye for and eye" and used them in place of the actual law.

That is a major problem.

Using the bible for spiritual guidance is one thing--using your spiritual guide to sentence someone in a court of law is illegal.

Think of it this way--what if instead of a Christian bible, the five jurors in this case consulted the Quran, the Vedas, Dianetics, or even Tarot Cards as a basis for sentencing?



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
For that matter, say someones Blog? or the Talmud, Mao's little red book, the teaching of Pol Pot etc etc. The conviction itself was not overturned if I understand it, rather the sentance of death. im not sure if they can do that part again or have to risk a whole new trial.

[edit on 3/28/05 by FredT]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
For your edification Fred
    Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
    Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This clearly shows that had the people (jury) been Christians the guy would have walked



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join