Re: Play judge : Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:50 pm  

V6Chuk wrote:

You are right, I don't think in law we can refuse someone jury service on religious grounds alone, however laws can and sometime should be changed. How in the 21st century can we trust the judgments and faculties of people who are guided in life by Bronze Age superstition?

You don't trust the majority of the human race then? Atheists and the irreligious are in the minority, and always have been. Estimates vary that between 80-84% of the world's population follow a religion of some form.

I've always wondered, do those slating religion (as certain folk so love to on here) truly believe they are the insightful minority and the majority of the human race throughout known history is, and always has been, gullible and deluded?

As you say though, religion is a funny human trait. Even casual research into the origins and history of religion and the twists, turns and blatant cons that have taken place throughout human history tell you there are many enormous flaws to the God argument. Yet billions still visit places of worship every day.

FWIW, I don't think religion should be a factor in law. I've sworn in as a witness twice with no reference to God.

V6Chuk wrote:

I'm not sure how anyone who has a history of being unable to deal with facts in coherent and rational way, (something I always imagined is a must for a juror and something religious folk seem to have a constant problem with), can be relied upon to produce a valid conclusion based on the predicates presented to them? I suppose in a similar way a witness who is shown to be inconsistent or a liar is considered unreliable.

It's not black or white though. Some religious folk go through the motions, some use the church simply as a community centre, some have a genuine but casual belief, some follow their religions to the letter, some are aggressively religious. It's an infinite range and in between you have just as many interpretations and individual meanings of religion.

You think religious people are unable to deal with facts because they believe in a God? You think many judges, solicitors, teachers, engineers, scientists, soldiers, doctors, surgeons, nurses, computer programmers, etc, etc, etc, aren't religious? These people, and many others, kind of need to deal with and make judgements based on facts and their religious beliefs are probably irrelevant. There are always exceptions of course, as I'm sure someone will point out.

BTW, I'm not religious. I was taken to church as a child and had a brush with 'born-again' Christianity as a young and befuddled teenager, but those things are many years behind me. I simply see no need to jump on the 'beating religion to a pulp' bandwagon, as right-on as that might make me - unless stupid people use it to demand stupid things, as seems to be all the rage in the States right now.

Fact is, the judge wanted to see this woman's face and she didn't want to show it. Perhaps she had a big spot on her nose. No issue.

Re: Play judge : Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:34 pm  

Cronus wrote:

You don't trust the majority of the human race then? Atheists and the irreligious are in the minority, and always have been. Estimates vary that between 80-84% of the world's population follow a religion of some form.

I've always wondered, do those slating religion (as certain folk so love to on here) truly believe they are the insightful minority and the majority of the human race throughout known history is, and always has been, gullible and deluded?

I think you answer your own question here TBH:

Cronus wrote:

It's not black or white though. Some religious folk go through the motions, some use the church simply as a community centre, some have a genuine but casual belief, some follow their religions to the letter, some are aggressively religious. It's an infinite range and in between you have just as many interpretations and individual meanings of religion.

And so it has always been.

Re: Play judge : Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:06 am  

Cronus wrote:

You don't trust the majority of the human race then? Atheists and the irreligious are in the minority, and always have been. Estimates vary that between 80-84% of the world's population follow a religion of some form...

The largest number of people who buy/read newspapers in the UK buy/read a tabloid. Do you think they're as informed etc as those who buy something a tad more sensible – just because they're in the majority?

Cronus wrote:

I've always wondered, do those slating religion (as certain folk so love to on here) truly believe they are the insightful minority and the majority of the human race throughout known history is, and always has been, gullible and deluded?

No. Because for much of known history, religions offered the only coherent explanations of natural phenomena.

[Kosh]

Re: Play judge : Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:22 am  

Cronus wrote:

You don't trust the majority of the human race then?

Why is the majority automatically worthy of trust?

Cronus wrote:

I've always wondered, do those slating religion (as certain folk so love to on here) truly believe they are the insightful minority and the majority of the human race throughout known history is, and always has been, gullible and deluded?

Sort of. People who follow a religion now are gullible and/or deluded: Back in the day folk didn't know any better so it would be a tad harsh to judge them by modern standards.

Re: Play judge : Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:36 pm  

Cronus wrote:

You think religious people are unable to deal with facts because they believe in a God? You think many judges, solicitors, teachers, engineers, scientists, soldiers, doctors, surgeons, nurses, computer programmers, etc, etc, etc, aren't religious? These people, and many others, kind of need to deal with and make judgements based on facts and their religious beliefs are probably irrelevant. There are always exceptions of course, as I'm sure someone will point out.

That to me has to be one of the great conundrums of the modern age, why are so many medical people religious ?

The Fabrice Muamba situation for instance, a consultant cardiologist who was in the ground on saturday and helped with the resuscitation was interviewed this week speaking of "a miracle" that the player survived (so far) and there have been many references to "the power of prayer" this week, whereas the truth is that if you are going to have a heart attack then a full premier league football ground is probably as good a place to have one as any, a place where medics are already in attendance, where defib equipment is (or should be) in place, where medically qualified people are in the crowd in abundance and one of them is a consultant cardiologist, and the medically qualified people should be the first to acknowledge that its their well practised procedures that kept him alive not 40,000 chanting a prayer.

What the consultant cardiologist forgot was the figure quoted this week of 20 sudden deaths that occur every year in amateur football (where no apparent heart condition previously exists) where the unfortunate players did not have defib equipment or a consultant cardiologist on the touchline - or the hundreds of deaths every year from sudden cardiac death (not cardiac arrest) - its why portable defib equipment is kept in lots of public places now, its that common, and waiting for another miracle or chanting a prayer does absolutely no good for those people at all.

Re: Play judge : Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:14 pm  

V6Chuk wrote:

The fact she is religious should be enough to get her off any jury. I’m not sure someone who determines their own life based on blind faith can ever be trusted to determine another’s life by deriving conclusions based on empirical evidence?
These are people who, at the end of the day, will quite happily throw all reason out of the window and go with ‘a feeling they just have’ or some other sanctimonious rubbish.

You're saying that when being judged by a jury of your peers there should be legally set limits on precisely the kind of peers you're allowed to be judged by, and that those limits should be defined by what you perceive their private thoughts and belief system to be?

That seems ever so slightly tyrannically dumb of you, and it obviously couldn't ever be abused.

Re: Play judge : Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:55 pm  

The idea of a Jury is that you are judged by society. Like it or not, many people in society are religious so to exclude them would be ridiculous.

Personally I think it would be better to exclude smokers. Anyone who pays money to smoke fags when it is medically proven that they cause numerous diseases can't be right in the head. In the 21st century too, at least people didn't know what harm it did when Walter Raleigh introduced it into the UK.

Who is more deluded? Someone who believes in God or someone who pays money to get cancer.

Ban smokers from Jury duty. They obviously cannot think rationally.

Re: Play judge : Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:24 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

The idea of a Jury is that you are judged by society. Like it or not, many people in society are religious so to exclude them would be ridiculous.

Personally I think it would be better to exclude smokers. Anyone who pays money to smoke fags when it is medically proven that they cause numerous diseases can't be right in the head. In the 21st century too, at least people didn't know what harm it did when Walter Raleigh introduced it into the UK.

Who is more deluded? Someone who believes in God or someone who pays money to get cancer.

Ban smokers from Jury duty. They obviously cannot think rationally.

and people who drink alcohol.