While most people on average are caught up in their daily routine, I figure I would try to catch those who are on HubPages to discuss something.
However, it is unfortunate, some people might not like what is said, but to be completely honesty, I find it fairly hard to see how things are to work properly.
Now- religious folk, those who follow god's will or laws, are supposedly not sit in judgment of anyone. There are plenty of religious folk who make judgmental statements about other people's action and deemed them immoral, more often than not.
On a side note- the laws that govern people are enforced by the citizens(on a jury) of the community. These same citizens, a fairly good portion, have some religious bias, that always plays a factor in their decision making.
Meaning, if there are bunches of religious folk on a Jury, how can they be trusted to put their bias aside??
Doesn't having a bunch of religious folk on a Jury automatically provide an appeal? It would be considered prejudice weighted...right?
But no really yes I agree that a religious jury would tend to sway toward the values of those teachings and in my opinion taint the verdict. Having said that I must add that with or without religion there are a number of things that are just wrong in everyone's mind and for these things like murder, rape, etc. I think the outcome would be the same no matter what the makeup of the jury was.
That is a nice point Rochelle. Why would it matter? It just means that they do not understand their own beliefs nor do they understand how they formed that belief, for which, when it comes time to decide...they cannot be honest enough to be of any good to the system. Their choice will be tainted, compared to those who are not of any religious view or outlook.
There is no human possible way that jury would not be bias. It's an argument that should be forced for those who believe different to be the criminal and have a jury full of religious people opposite of your religion and a death penalty would be possible.
My terribly written point is why do so many of us have to be right? Why do most of us never consider walking in someone else's shoes, and not even having to know the details?
I judge no one and your belief. It would not enter my mind, nor do I feel I have the right to, it;s ignorance.
But what is consistent is hate. Hate for each others beliefs, so judgement is spit out.
Yes there is no possible way any jury will not have some biases no matter what their beliefs are. But they do have a jury selection process that both sides get to weigh in and have jury members that both sides agree upon.
When it comes down to it you could find a case for no one being eligble to sit on a jury.Should the: rich sit in judgement of the poor,white v black,Republican v Democrat,High IQ's v low IQ's,city folk v rural folk etc. All will lack some degree of empathy and bring prejudices to bear.
But do you think whites can be trusted to judge blacks and rich v poor etc.Why single out religion.We have to trust the majority to put prejudices aside. Otherwise we leave it to the select few.That is the path to tyranny.
I think there are some on both sides of the fence that can be trusted and some that can't. Lumping people together into a standard of behavior based on their beliefs is sort of like saying all all redheads have bad tempers or all overweight people are jolly. It is a very bad habit to get into.
There are people with agendas on both sides of the aisle. That the truth no way around it. The jury selection process was put in place to help weed those people out. It is not infalable, but it is all we have, and it works pretty well. It's not perfect but it never will be because we are human, not machines.
Cags, you say religion breeds distrusting people but it seems to me that you are the one who sounds distrusting.
No religion does not breed selfish people, there are selfish people in all beliefs religious or not. I respect your decision to not have a religion that is your choice, but it seems like you do not trust anyone who is religious. And by religious I mean believes in God. I do not go to church, but I believe in God. Even though you do not I still would trust you if I knew you and felt like you could be trusted. I have friends who do not believe the way I do but I know they can be trusted. You need to not put people in boxes not all religous people are fanatics. Just as all atheists are not bad people. I like you from what I see on hubpages. You make people think and challenge people which is always good, but I would hope that you could see that their beleifs do not interfere with being a trustworthy person.
Religion breeds selfish people. Parents teach their children about god, even if they do not believe it themselves, to give them an option. When religion obtains a follower, that follow becomes selfish through the use of the doctrines religion teaches. So, yes religion breeds selfish people.
And, yes selfish people can have no religion. Elimination of religion provides less selfish people in the long run. A religious person is more inclined to be selfish, because that's what religion teaches. Again, how can you trust a selfish person to do what's right? It's a higher cause other than humanity. That action is selfish. I trust only two people. I have faith in people to do what's right when necessary. The problem is too many looking out for themselves. Too much selfishness. Not enough caring about others. I did not say they were all fanatics. I said they could not be trusted. Actually, with the irrational ideology of god, makes most religious not trustworthy. Because, they cannot think for themselves. They do not guide themselves, but are lead.
Your fear of religion is clouding your thinking. If you get ahold of your emotions and think about it, you'll see that almost all religions are about community. Community is not about selfishness, distrust, or dishonesty.
No I mean is it about the death penalty, is that what you are opposed to? Or are you for the death penalty? Is that the bottom line? I mean if the verdict of guilty is stated beyond a shadow of a doubt. According to all the evidence presented. Then what do you oppose exactly? And I am saying for the charge of 1st degree murder.
Sab Oh why did you hijack my conversation with Cags I was really curious to what he thinks and I don't understand why you did this. I understand you beliefs are very strong and you want to share your opinion but really it just seems like you are trying to provoke Cags. I just wanted to learn his prospective.
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation. ...
Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and...
Just to see what people think from different religions. Please tell me what religion you are If you are okay with that and then answer the simple question of "Do you believe you should PUSH your religion on your...
Do you think the day is coming when ISIS will attack us here in America? Is there any way to stop a ISIS attack here in America? What do you think America should do about ISIS? Should we strike them in such a way as to...
It behooves me that those who claim to be pro-life are oftentimes pro-war and pro-death penalty. Also, these people who believe that any woman who becomes pregnant, should have the baby no matter what...