AAARRRRRGGGGG.
If I were the defendant in this trial, I would appeal. The jury prayed over their decision.
Actually, this makes me wonder about a "jury of my peers". If I found that the jury prayed over whether to convict me or not, they are not my peers. If I were found guilty, I would certainly appeal on that ground.
The article quotes a juror:
Kissam [a juror] said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cook [the defendant] behaved recklessly.
“Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct,” Kissam said. “He did all he could do.”
Criminy, where to start? The juror based their decision on evidence, but still prayed? Why bother?
And why bother anyway? Prayer doesn’t work. If they are willing to base their decision in a trial on evidence, why not look to the evidence that prayer doesn’t work?
June 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
And I’ve just been drafted to appear for jury duty.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Perhaps you could ease up a little.
Suppose instead of praying, the jury took ten minutes to silently meditate, taking deep, cleansing breaths together and visualizing a moonlit walk on the beach. Suppose their stated purpose was to calm down together, removing all emotional baggage and helping to concentrate on the task at hand. Suppose they further stated that they hoped to fully realize the expectation of Justice that Humanity and the Community had placed in them.
Would such appeals to nonsensical Capital Letters get your ire up as much?
Even if I posit that prayer has no intercessory value, as you loudly state on every possible occasion, what harm can it do to concentrate people’s attention on the significance of their actions? If people have Right and Duty and Justice and Mercy uppermost in their mind — things that have no real existence, just like God — and it helps them reach better decisions, how could that not be a good thing?
June 13th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Just to worry the point a bit more — there is a difference between praying for an election outcome, which requires that millions of people across America vote the “right” way, and praying for strength to complete a task, which requires only that the people within earshot take their job seriously.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Why on Earth would you appeal an acquittal???
June 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“Why on Earth would you appeal an acquittal???”
To learn all the good things God is teaching Kent Hovind in prison.
http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=75
June 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Also, upon reading the article, it doesn’t look like their prayer had anything to do with the verdict. They prayed for the girl’s family, who have suffered a tragic loss, and the defendant, who’s been through a lot recently himself.
I’m with the above poster: lighten up.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I’m inclined to agree with Ross Presser on this one. I read bad astronomy blog often (was pointed this direction by Tony from astronomy buff). I’m not particularly religious myself, but for lack of better words….take it easy.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Prayer isn’t about getting god (or whatever powers that be), to do what you want- if you go by that (and far too many DO people go by that), then yep, prayer doesn’t work. I view it as a “covering all bases thing”. More of a hope issue. If later you think you made the wrong decision, you can still say that the Powers that Be deemed it.
As for this trial, well… they did aquit him. If a group of people you considered evil decided you weren’t guilty of something, you wouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I sure as heck don’t want my fate depending on the superstitions of other people.
They probably don’t even believe in me!
June 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
He got off. I also find God Botherers a PITA and wish they’d just keep their beliefs to themselves but I’ve got to side with the posters who think maybe this one wasn’t worth blogging about. There are just parts of the US where people carry on like this, it’s sad, but there you go. Just be happy if you don’t live there.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Prayer isn’t about getting god (or whatever powers that be), to do what you want- if you go by that (and far too many people DO go by that - we may have free will, but I don’t see the point of an all-knowing diety running a democracy), then yep, prayer doesn’t work. I view it as a “covering all bases thing”. More of a hope issue. If later you think you made the wrong decision, you can still say that the Powers that Be deemed it.
As for this trial, well… they did aquit him. If a group of people you considered evil decided you weren’t guilty of something, you wouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
So some of you are suggesting that we don’t speak out against delusion and ignorance only when such antics are not beneficial to us? Had the bus driver been found guilty then there would be a reason to question obvious superstitious activity?
The article said : “God led us to make the right decision,” juror Cedric Kissam said after the verdict. “It was an accident. It wasn’t reckless driving.”
How terrible it would have been had “god” told the jury that someone had to pay for that accident regardless of the evidence? If I could point out an extreme case of falling back “god’s will” in the face of evidence - The Salem Witch Trials.
Honestly people, your skin doesn’t crawl at the thought of someone’s fate being decided based on superstitious beliefs? What if the jury had said “We gathered together to read the results of the thrown chicken bones and they told us this man was innocent.” Or perhaps you’d accept throwing the accused into water - if they sink and drown they were innocent, if they float and survive then they are guilty.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
See, I’m with Rick on this one.
Much more eloquently said, Rick.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Meditation != Prayer
Prayer in this case is an appeal to a higher (and nonexistant) power. It is saying “tell me what to do!” not “I’m trying to clear my mind so I can make a good decision”.
And they did pray over what verdict to return - it said so clearly in the article. The problem with praye being used by any part of the judicial system - and jurors are a large part of that system - is that it can open doors that can be used to blind people to the facts. Take the Salem witch trials as an example - or more recently, the Taliban implementation of justice in Afghanistan. Religious thought is powerful and often overcomes reason in it’s adherants - and the judicial process is supposed to be all about reason and blind to influences like religion. And, yes, before you point it out I do relaize that many of our laws can be traced back to a basis in religion - so? They have progressed far beyond that base.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
OK, now I hadn’t seen Rick’s reply when I made mine… but hey - Salem is a shining example now isn’t it?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
According to the article, the prayer was used as a means of calming their emotional state so thet they could make an evidence-based decision instead of succumbing to the “urge to punish him”.
There is no suggestion that they used prayer as a substitute for evidence.
So it looks to me like in this case prayer was working for rationality, and not against it.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I wonder, what exactly is a “jury of your peers”? In my case, I would consider a “peer” to be someone of reasonable intellect, an atheist, a star trek fan, and someone who can whip up a mean meal from scratch:). To me, that is a peer. Not some right wing religious nut job who thinks they are Doing God’s Will On Earth By Putting Someone Behind Bars Who Does Not Have The Same Religious Beliefs As They Do.
They don’t let people with severe learning disabilities serve on juries do they (I hope not:P)? But what is the difference between someone who cannot learn, and someone who refuses to learn? In the end, they have the same mental capacity for reasoning and analyzing information. And in the end, I wouldn’t want a religious zealot, who was proven by their acceptance of religion that they are incapable of reason, on my jury (should I ever commit a crime, which is unlikely). I wonder if there is some reasonable way to filter out people who have proven incapable of accepting reality? Who have proven themselves incapable of sentience (which is defined by basic observational skills and the ability to draw inferences and deductions from what is observed. Something religious people as a whole are completely incapable of.)?
I sometimes wonder how many people on Earth can truly be defined as “intelligent beingsâ€.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
BTW, I wasn’t speaking specifically of this article, but of the topic of religion in courts in general. I didn’t read the article, and I have no idea what was going on there.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’m with BA on this one. Whenever a rational decision is needed and those making the decision turn away from facts, logic and reason, then civilization is no better off than it was in the Dark Ages. I don’t care if it is an appeal for divine intervention or a simple effort to CYA, the introduction of superstition is a major mistake.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
As soon as the quoted juror said that, “god led us…” they absolved themselves of any responsibility to the facts and a rational examination of them. Using that quote as a basis, I could go and commit a crime but as long as I can say that “god led me” I’d have a pretty good chance at getting off with this jury. I”m with Phil (as I so often am), this was out of line and nonsensical.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Lab Lemming - Here’s the quote: “God led us to make the right decision,”
That does not say “God calmed me so I could make a rational and informed decision”. It says, quite literally, that their decision was influenced (led) by a deity. This scares the heck out of me, personally. It is way too easy for somebody to lead a group engaged in this sort of thinking down a path the leads to Very Bad Things. Yes, in this case it looks like the right thing was done - it appears it was a horrible accident but not a criminal act… but it could have just as easily gone the other way. Make decisions based on facts, not decisions based on what you believe a deity wants you to do. History is filled with atrocities commited by well meaning people who ignored the evidence in front of them in favor of what they believed a deity wanted… and I promise you it always started with a just a few folks who believed they knew what god wanted.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I refuse to accept that there is NO God because I just don’t KNOW. And neither do any of you. However, (and this is a BIG however) I believe that while God MAY have created the universe; Man Definately created religion. Because of that, everything religion-based is, in my mind, highly suspect. The very idea that an entity powerful enough to create all that there is, would care one nit what I do in my everyday life, is completely absurd. I mean really people, think about it! At best, God began everything with the big bang and made sure that the laws of physics were set up to allow the possibility of life and then he sat back, popped a beer, and waited to see what would happen. Does anyone really believe that the infinately powerful creator of this entire universe (if such exists) would really take time to make sure your spare tire is in good shape when you get a flat? Or would take an active hand in the future of some poor schmuck who was in the wrong place at the wrong time? I truely think NOT.
Here’s the thing; There’s only one way to KNOW if there is a God…croak.
And since we can’t come back to let the living know what the reality is, leave religion and God out of things that effect an entire population of people who are supposed to be free to think what they want, go where they want, and diddle themselves all they want. (in private please)
June 13th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
This is an excellent example of why the separation of church and state was a brilliant idea and remains so today.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
The BA wrote: “If I found that the jury prayed over whether to convict me or not, they are not my peers. ”
Yea, but where are you going to find 12 arrogant astronomer-turned-writers in the same county?
I’m sorry Phil. I’ve been a fan of your since the day of the old board and “He Who Shall Not Be Named”, but I am finding your fanatacism harder and harder to swallow. You can think I’m a moron, but try to refrain from saying it to my face.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Sorry… the name should have been “Matherly”. I post as “Mondoz” on a diffrent board.
Carl
June 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Ahh,
While I do agree with Phil on the amount of evidence showing that prayer does not work, and while I also agree that I would feel the same way if I were on trial here, it seems that these jurors were indeed the right group in this case:
“Prayer also took place outside the courtroom: Cook and his family prayed with their attorneys moments before the verdict was read.”
My guess is that the defendant was deeply religious, and therefore, so were his peers.
B-)
June 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
For what it’s worth, “jury of your peers” is not enshrined anywhere in American law. It’s a British common law concept, and it originally meant “peer” as in nobles, as opposed to the King being the final arbiter. The 6th Amendment to our Constitution promises an “impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” and that’s it. It’s amazing how often I hear people cite the “jury of your peers” as if it’s an actual right bestowed on American citizens.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
The problem with having a jury of my peers is the quality of peers is fairly low as it is. I can’t imagine it was much better when this was first drafted by the US founders though (I’m not one of those “golden age” nuts). The sad thing is, these juries seem to be selected to be especially easy to manipulate, as that apparently benefits both lawyers, and not selected to be especially rational and critically minded, which if you asked me would also benefit both lawyers in a different way, and further would benefit the pursuit of truth.
As The Monarch would say. “How DARE you? This mouth breathing lot my PEEERS?” (I’m paraphrasing, as I have a hard time remembering exact quotes.)
June 13th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
This one’s tricky. I can understand (and, indeed, sympathize) with jurors praying for strength to make the right decision, to look at the evidence and not be swayed by emotion, or anything along those lines. In that instance, the end result is the same as if the jurors had meditated beforehand.
If it weren’t for the comment that these jurors prayed to God to make the right decision, I’d be fine with what they did. With that in mind, however… I don’t like it.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I notice that several people have invoked the Salem Witch Trials as an example above. Just for historical accuracy, here’s what actually happened:
The whole period that encompassed the “trials” was only nine months, from August 1692 to May 1693. Hundreds and hundreds of people were accused (mostly by people mad at them), but only one hundred, more or less, were actually tried. Of those that were, if you plead guilty they did not execute you, they just had members of the clergy and laity pray for your salvation, and “poof” you were “cured” of the witchcraft.
If you plead innocent, you were, obviously, suspect and most were found guilty (although they were only guilty of pleading innocent!). However, most of the guilty were given jail time, and only 16 were executed. No, not by burning; that was an old European custom. Fifteen of them were hanged and the last, an ornery old man who refused to enter a plea or even acknowledge the charges, was “pressed.” This means they piled stones on him until he was crushed to death. Normally that took less than a day, but this guy lasted three, and every time they demanded that he acknowledge the charges he’d say, “buzz off,” (or whatever the equivalent 17th century phrase was), “just add more weight!”
If you ever find yourself in eastern Massachusetts, spending a day touring Salem is definitely worth while. Be sure to stick around for the “Haunted Homes” walking tour. It’s a hoot. Not just the tour itself, but watching all of the people on it that take this seriously!
- Jack
June 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
“…the quality of peers is fairly low…”
Then spend more time educating people. Education is generally more effective if you don’t first insult the people you are trying to inform.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I’m somewhat amazed by all the people who, while claiming prayer is a useless waste of time, also seem to imply it impaired their judgement. Consider that the same people, in the same situation, would’ve made the same decision with or without prayer. It’s not like they got divine intervention either way.
Sure, they may say that God led them to their decision, but since there is no God, they’re clearly wrong, and thus while they may think God was involved, they actually made the same decision they would’ve made anyway, all by themselves. One can point out the Salem Witch Trials as evidence that religious thought can foment violence in the public, but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents. To claim that religious thought is somehow special in this regard is rank bigotry.
Which brings us back to the point that whether they prayed or not is ultimately irrelevant. Which means that the actual problem isn’t that they prayed on a jury, but that people who *would* pray were put on a jury. Which ends up being a condemnation of anyone who is religious (or, hell, let’s go wild and say “Not an atheist”) as being incapable of making a fair decision. I expect that, in deference to the rigorously intellectual standards of this find organ, we’ll now be treated to any number of entries which boil down to “A person who is not an atheist made a decision. He is incompetent to make that decision because he is not an atheist, and only atheists are fully rational and reasonable human beings.”
Oh, and in response to the statement; “Honestly people, your skin doesn’t crawl at the thought of someone’s fate being decided based on superstitious beliefs?”
That just depends. If their superstitious belief is all creatures were created equally by a loving and merciful God, and that anyone that is to be judged shall be given a fair and impartial hearing so that justice may be found whether he is your most beloved brother or your most hated nemesis, I’m pretty okay with that. Now, if my fate were being decided by a secular, atheistic system such as phrenology or social darwinism, I’d be considerably more upset. I’m assuming everyone else here would be fine with it, though, since it doesn’t involve that evil G-word.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“Yea, but where are you going to find 12 arrogant astronomer-turned-writers in the same county?”
Quote of the year.
Phil, if you spent half as much time providing us peons with an answer to the “Why is there anything?” question as you do Googling yourself to cross-reference and re-promote yourself, society as a whole would be better off.
This blog has gone steadily downhill since you started ranting about religion, politics, and debunking tv commercials to prove you have no sense of humor.
Congratulations.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Amen to T. Paine.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
David Gian-Cursio said; I’m somewhat amazed by all the people who, while claiming prayer is a useless waste of time, also seem to imply it impaired their judgement. Consider that the same people, in the same situation, would’ve made the same decision with or without prayer. It’s not like they got divine intervention either way.
Um, no. Jury trials are all about examining the evidence and seeing if it leads to a particular conclusion, and as such, they require the active effort of thought. Praying for a conclusion is, in most cases, a direct admission that one has no thoughts to apply to it - it means the person is stumped for an answer.
Sure, they may say that God led them to their decision, but since there is no God, they’re clearly wrong, and thus while they may think God was involved, they actually made the same decision they would’ve made anyway, all by themselves.
Hardly. Praying for an answer means that people end up going with their gut feelings, or sudden “insights.” It has nothing to do with treating the evidence in a fair and objective manner. That can only be said if the person is fair and objective in the first place, and I sure as hell (Ha! I funny!) wouldn’t want to bet my future on that. Trials are meant to instill this effort within the jury (despite what any particular attorney might be aiming for). It is pretty clear it failed in this regard - the jury resorted to “signs” rather than trusting their own minds and concentrating on the evidence as presented. Would the sentence have been the same if enough jury members had indigestion? If the defendant looked untrustworthy? If he admitted to being an atheist?
One can point out the Salem Witch Trials as evidence that religious thought can foment violence in the public, but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents. To claim that religious thought is somehow special in this regard is rank bigotry.
Heh! Or it means you know more than a passing amount of history. I’m game. Wanna make a list?
Which means that the actual problem isn’t that they prayed on a jury, but that people who *would* pray were put on a jury. Which ends up being a condemnation of anyone who is religious (or, hell, let’s go wild and say “Not an atheistâ€) as being incapable of making a fair decision.
Ah, Hyperbole and Extension, where would debate be without you two lovable rogues? The issue is not whether someone religious made the decision - it is, very specifically (you can read it to make sure), about the fact that they admitted to praying for a decision.
I admit to being more than a little concerned if someone devoutly or fundamentally religious makes a decision regarding my welfare, but I’m more concerned that they do it with regard for the factors that directly relate. Objectivity. That’s the whole point. Preconceived notions do not belong. And like it or not, when you pray, that’s all you’re gonna end up with.
I think it’s a rather disturbing mark on our society that a group of people could freely admit to such a crapshoot without feeling ashamed of it. You prayed for a decision? Thinking comes that hard for you?
Let me put this another way: You pick up your child from daycare, and she has a bandage on her arm. You ask what happened, and are told she cut herself badly on the playground. The daycare counselor then tells you, “I prayed for guidance on my actions, and gawd told me to take her to a hospital.”
Yes, right answer, but does that make you feel more comfortable with someone who couldn’t resort to common sense in such a case?
Admittedly, court decision aren’t always “common sense,” but this should make absolutely no difference. Where does the evidence lead? That’s the only question. If you have no firm conclusion, that simply means acquittal. It doesn’t mean, “Did I get that right, Magic Sky Pony?”
That just depends. If their superstitious belief is all creatures were created equally by a loving and merciful God, and that anyone that is to be judged shall be given a fair and impartial hearing so that justice may be found whether he is your most beloved brother or your most hated nemesis, I’m pretty okay with that.
Nice to know. So, how do you determine this is what they believe? And, now that you have me curious, which religion proposes this system?
June 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Jack Hagerty: The whole period that encompassed the “trials†was only nine months,…
In Salem, yes. In Europe, not quite. We do tend to be a little Yankee-centric in our knowledge of history, so Salem gets invoked more while being relatively mild in comparison, but this shouldn’t take away from the main point of witch hunts in the first place.
That said, I’ve been thinking about checking out one of the local (more or less) ghost walks here, which means Blackbeard-related stuff. Could be a hoot. From what I’ve heard, it can be entertaining to ask the guides (apart from the group if you can) about the best questions they’ve been asked.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Phil, I subscribed to the Bad Astronomy Blog, not the Ranting Against Religion Blog.
Please keep your non-astronomy-related anti-Christian posts to yourself, or start another blog for those posts. That’s not what I came here to read.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
I’m an atheist, but from what I read in that article, I didn’t read anything in particular that would make me prefer other jurors. The fact that they prayed has an emotional significance to me. It tells me they were taking it seriously on an emotional level.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
It’s the “God led us…” part that most of the posters, as well as, I conclude, BA, find disturbing. Yes, the act of prayer can be equated to an act of meditation or relaxation in some people, but those people usually use phrases such as “at peace to make a decision”, or “given the contentment to reexamine the evidence with a clear mind”, or some other phrase that makes it clear that they seek God to find inner peace and the ability to continue in a clear-headed way. It is much more common to find people who explicitly state that, when they pray, God is spoken to and responds in a physical way, be it by an audible voice, or a “revelation of truth”. These people, if sincere, are disturbed, if not insane. Berkowitz also heard divine orders, and followed them.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Folks, we have been through this before. It’s my blog, and I will write about what I care about. If you don’t like it, there are literally hundreds of millions of other blogs you can read. Telling me what I can and cannot write on my own blog is pretty silly.
And it’s not arrogant to say that I don’t want people who ascribe to a method proven to be useless to be on a jury pondering my fate. I never said these people were stupid, nor did I say they were beneath me. I said they were not my peers; that is, people who are on the same ground I am about such things.
I inferred from the article — brief as it was — that prayer swayed their decision, as well as evidence. That’s what I am writing about. If someone cast Tarot cards to make their decision I would be no more or less unhappy.
I didn’t know “peers” was a holdover from England; that’s interesting. I assumed it was a right. I checked, it isn’t.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
It should be a mistrial because the jurors did not properly consider the evidence and instead relied on divine guidance.
They weren’t put in there to ask God for an answer. They were gathered together to examine the evidence presented in a critical way. it doesn’t matter whether or not they believe in God, but it does matter if they’re effectively deciding a case based on an invisible voice in their heads instead of the evidence at hand.
Maybe the guy did deserve to be acquited. But really nobody will know because some people let their invisible spirit decide instead of fulfilling their civic duty.
June 13th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I was more bothered by the fact that this Diepraam character seems to have prosocuted someone who was obviously innocent in the first place. Maybe looking for the spot-light, career progression?
I also don’t have a problem with BA’s anti-religion posts. If you want to promote science and logical thinking, you have to show all the different angles you see where people fall back non-logical means to come to their decisions. No jury should be praying about a verdict, at the least it would seem to be a violation of the sepration of Church and State.
I imagine these blog responses would take an entirely different attitude if they had prayed and found him guilty. Which leads to the conclusion that they should not have been praying about it in the first place. If you must pray, pray for the greiving family, pray for the defendant to get through this terrible time, but don’t ever pray for guidance in the verdict.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
The point of mentioning the Salem trials was an example of how people check their rationality at the coat rack when it comes to anything religious. Those people believed in witches and demons and curses and because of the accusations of young girls people died.
But if bringing up the Salem trials is considered tired and over-used then I’ll mention a few other situations where depending on ones religion to make a decision isn’t always the wisest thing to do.
How about miracle cures and convincing people to not seek true medical attention because they believe god will heal them?
How about birth control when people of faith believe that it is a sin to use? This attitude is directly responsible for so many unplanned pregnancies, teenage pregnancy, and the contribution to the spreading AIDS epidemic in Africa. Cry abstinence all you like, but by doing so you are simply refusing to face the reality of human nature.
Another one is people murdered in the name of faith for loving the wrong person. This still happens today (as recently reported in the Middle East with the stoning of Du’a Khalil Aswad.)
Religion and the abortion issue with the contradiction of “thou shall not kill” while at the same time blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors.
The Westborro Baptist Church (need I say more?)
David Gian-Cursio said : “but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents.”
Do me the favor of pointing some out. Please don’t try and use Hitler, he was a Catholic, regardless if religious people try to claim he wasn’t. He contributed to the Roman Catholic Church, he was never denounced by them, and he wrote in his book Mein Kampf: “Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s Work.” Perhaps people of religion don’t like having him as a poster boy and try and denounce him now, but that does little to disprove that he had some kind of belief.
I will also put to you that there is not one recorded instance of a person being killed in the name of atheism.
Using religion to make decisions has a very poor historical record, especially when the entire concept of religion hinges around the concept of “faith” which requires one believe or accept something regardless of the evidence on hand. That is my problem with people in a jury using prayer or religion in any way to come to a decision.
“If their superstitious belief is all creatures were created equally by a loving and merciful God, ” - “I’m pretty okay with that.”
Except that religion does not treat everyone as created equally. I think you are confusing the Bill of Rights with the Bible. The bible teaches that homosexuals are deviants and that the woman’s place is below that of men and that slaves are acceptable. It also records many people invaded, murdered, and eliminated because they had different beliefs. While my Islamic scriptures are a bit weak, I recall it condoning the killing of infidels (non believers). It simply seems that religion doesn’t exactly teach that all people are created equally.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“I’m an atheist, but from what I read in that article, I didn’t read anything in particular that would make me prefer other jurors. The fact that they prayed has an emotional significance to me. It tells me they were taking it seriously on an emotional level.”
Well said. If I hire a Druid tree surgeon who prays to the spirit of a tree before he works on it, I may not believe in the spirits to which he prays, but I may be reasonably sure that I have hired a tree surgeon who takes his work seriously.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Now this is something to really get upset about, IMO:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6557679.stm
“Iran’s Supreme Court has acquitted a group of men charged over a series of gruesome killings in 2002, according to lawyers for the victims’ families.
The vigilantes were not guilty because their victims were involved in un-Islamic activities, the court found.
According to their confessions, the killers put some of their victims in pits and stoned them to death. Others were suffocated. One man was even buried alive while others had their bodies dumped in the desert to be eaten by wild animals.”
June 14th, 2007 at 12:25 am
The Bad Astronomer
Says:
Folks, we have been through this before. It’s my blog, and I will write about what I care about.
Now Phil, that’s an extraordinarily selfish thing to say. I demand that, if you don’t write about what we want you to write about, you immediately refund us our subscriptions!
And what we want, is entertainment. We don’t want any ideas that challenge our preconceptions and make us think! Show us pretty star pictures! Or better yet, pretty celebrities! That’s it, I demand that in future this blog feature only Paris Hilton stories, or I want my money back! </snark>
June 14th, 2007 at 12:38 am
“Of those that were, if you plead guilty they did not execute you,”
Gee, that was nice of them.
“but we all can name any number of secular and atheistic brainwashing campaigns that was just as successful in causing the murder of innocents.”
Perhaps you could uh, educate us then.
And to all the over-sensitive types complaining about “anti-christian posts”, I disagree. Phil hasn’t said anything bad about religion or the people who believe in it, he has simply pointed out where the use of it is inappropriate.
“Some people looked at it because a little girl was killed and wanted someone to pay,” he said. “But nobody wants to put someone away for an accident.”
Then if the incident was an accident, then a jury going in with a rational mindset, looking at the evidence objectively, they would come to the same conclusion - that the man was innocent. It’s that simple. No prayer required. And yeah, there is also that separation of church and state thing.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Instead of quoting a whole bunch of responses, I’ll just do one representative sample:
“It should be a mistrial because the jurors did not properly consider the evidence and instead relied on divine guidance.”
The article is clear: they did NOT do this. They most certainly DID make their decision based on the evidence (Kissam said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cook behaved recklessly. “Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct,” Kissam said. “He did all he could do.”). What they prayed for was, basically, rationality (fought the urge to punish him for the “tragic accident” and prayed instead for guidance).
I guess a fanatical opposition to religion can be just as blinding as religion itself. Especially if it leads one to the extremely dangerous conclusion that an ACQUITTAL can be deemed a mistrial!
June 14th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Hi all,
Just want to note that I’m all with BA on this. Whenever people says “a god led me to…” or “a god told me to…” I get kinda scared at least on their behalf.
Praying might be usefull as a tool to calm ones thoughts, I have no problem with that, but people very often pray for someone to get healthy, to find someone (Madeleine, Natascha Kampusch), to succeed in something and they very often credit their branch of a god with all the good outcomes regardless of doctors, police, other people making an effort or even the people themselves. I find that belittleling (sp?).
A lot of people put away reason and evidence and that can lead to bad decisions. People die because they let go of medicine and puts crystals under their pillows instead. And what if in the next trial the jury has some prejudice against the defendant and they throw the dice in their heads with a prayer?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Paris who? Sorry, head in the clouds trying to avoid all the people dumping on Phil.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:10 am
>>>BA quite often you are so silly… a preayer can be a form of meditation, a way to clear ones mind, its not a big deal, if one prays it doesn’t mean ones judgment is clouded.
but, in a case if one prays INSTEAD of analyzing evidence, well… only in America lol
anyways jurors often times are inadequate, not because of their religious practices, but … lack of education, lack of intelligence etc
June 14th, 2007 at 1:25 am
One of the commenters here has a point: stick to ASTRONOMY and SCIENCE, otherwise your blog will become less and less interesting, not everybody wants to read about OBVIOUS bs here…
June 14th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Xenu, as the BA has already mentioned, if you don’t like what he blogs about, you are free to choose from thousands of different blogs. This is the BAs blog and he writes about what he thinks is important enough to make him touch his keyboard.
Besides of astronomy and science he has decided that anti-science is one of his topics. So either live with it or just ignore these entries.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:51 am
FARK!
June 14th, 2007 at 3:01 am
“What they prayed for was, basically, rationality”
Before you go and give us your religious martyr complex “waaaaa, they’re picking on us!”, I’m not an atheist, and I have friends who are religious who don’t NEED to pray to be rational. If I did know people like that, I think I’d be scared of them. And I’d ask them to pray as often as possible…
Xenu - Don’t like it? Don’t read it. Simple. (shrug)
June 14th, 2007 at 4:01 am
“What they prayed for was, basically, rationalityâ€
Ohhh, the irony!
June 14th, 2007 at 7:09 am
The BA wrote: “And it’s not arrogant to say that I don’t want people who ascribe to a method proven to be useless to be on a jury pondering my fate.”
So… you want a Religious Test to qualify for participation in a public service?
This seems to fly in the face of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. So much for seperation of church and state…
June 14th, 2007 at 7:09 am
As a scientist-in-training, I find your blog to be a very good read. I fully support your efforts to debunk various insanities science has picked up over the years. I applaud your purpose, even if it seems to get lost sometimes.
As a Christian, I find the whole chip-on-your-shoulder, holier-than-thou attitude you’ve shown again and again that you have toward religious people and religion in general to be insulting. You of all people should know that this is the EXACT attitude that drives people away from one’s cause, whether it’s coming from the religious or non-religious side.
I’m disappointed.
But you’re right. This is YOUR blog, you can write whatever you want in it. Fine, this is your right as owner of the blog. I hate to say that you’ve lost this reader, but as you said, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:17 am
I fear there’s no way for us to check if we’re gonna have a jury that will decide to pray over your fate. And unfortunately I believe that’s dangerous. If the person decides to use what the voice in his head says instead of what the evidence says… Owch!
And damn it folks, it’s the BA’s server, it’s his PROPERTY. It’s not as if you pay him for it so you can’t complain. When you don’t like something, don’t read it. I’m annoyed by his global warming articles, but do I write up in comments that he’ll lose all his readers and that he should just stick to astronomy because holy I believe so? Heck no. I just don’t read the post and don’t comment on it.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Especially if it leads one to the extremely dangerous conclusion that an ACQUITTAL can be deemed a mistrial!
I live in a place (Canada) where the Crown can appeal, and yes, sometimes acquittals are retried due to miscarriages of justice or events that bring the administration of justice in to disrepute…
… such as the jurors consulting invisible spirits to make a decision.
To be fair, it’s hard to say what really went on based on that short article. However, I’m pretty sure that if a jury came out here and said “After consulting with the FSM, we find the defendant not guilty” the Crown would almost certainly appeal and if it went the other way the defendant would appeal.
The Crown having a right of appeal helps prevent scumbags from getting off because of a corrupted or otherwise unfair jury. The defendants right of appeal helps prevent innocent people from being wrongfully convicted by corrupted or otherwise unfair juries… such as juries that talk to invisible spirits for guidance.
The statement that tweaks me is this:
It is my hope that logic and reason led him to make the right decision. If he believes God led him somewhere, it he might as well have flipped a coin believing that God would make it land the right way.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:23 am
ESquid summed it up for me. Why have 12 jurors when they’re just going to ask God? Why not be judged by 1 priest and save 11 people the effort of showing up?
By the way BA, I think it rocks when people put the boot to organized religion. You can’t promote science while giving a pass to irrational thinking. If you make it up to StarFest (our local star party in Mount Forest ON), there’s a beer waiting for you.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Brittany said : “As a Christian, I find the whole chip-on-your-shoulder, holier-than-thou attitude you’ve shown again and again that you have toward religious people and religion in general to be insulting.”
And there it is. Whenever people stand up against something doing with religion then the believers begin to scream persecution, arrogance, and intolerance against religion. Never fails to appear.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Phil: I’m with you most of the way on this one, but I think you’re being a bit rough on the idea of prayer. When you make a generic statement like, “Prayer doesn’t work,” well, sure it does, in a manner of speaking.
Of course the bogus experiments that some claim to have done that “prove” that people can pray for others, and, even if they don’t know others are praying for them, they will improve — well, that’s just nonsense.
However, people may do better if they know someone is praying for them. Why? Most likely because a kind word helps the psyche. No sources here. Sorry — and I know that’s not right.
But meditation is a very healthy activity. The Zen and Taoist traditions can be trendy for some, but taking time to slow down and learn quieting techniques are very beneficial. Whether one is communing with a divinity is another matter entirely. But these relaxation techniques are important, and under-employed in the West, IMO.
I’m personally far more concerned about this story:
Video Identifies Papacy as the Dreaded Beast of Bible Prophecy
Give me a break.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:38 am
That’s a most worthy statement.
It seems obvious enough that at least part of the purpose of this blog is to shine light into the darkness that is irrational thought (religion is in that darkness). But what can you do when the very people you most need to shine the light on prefer to put a black velvet cloth over their heads, plug their ears, and shout “LALALALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU” ?
It is impossible to use logic and reason on the religious because they counter with their faith-based irrationality.
If you choose a more aggressive approach, they get insulted and go away.
So how do you reach these people?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Rick wrote: “And there it is. Whenever people stand up against something doing with religion then the believers begin to scream persecution, arrogance, and intolerance against religion. Never fails to appear.”
????????
So… Phil is to be lauded for “standing up” against religion, but Brittany is to be chided because she said Phil’s opinion insulted her? Does the word “hypocrit” mean anything to you?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:43 am
>>> So some of you are suggesting that we don’t speak out
>>> against delusion and ignorance only when such antics are
>>> not beneficial to us?
There’s just a lot of better targets. Google “radical Islam” for an example. You may have heard of it.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:49 am
>>> Folks, we have been through this before. It’s my blog,
>>> and I will write about what I care about.
Well, I’m not one of the “stick to astronomy” types, but several of your recent entries have left me with a feeling of “I can’t believe he’s complaining about that when so much worse is going on.” I still dig ya, though. We all have our peeves.
>>> If someone cast Tarot cards to make their decision I
>>> would be no more or less unhappy.
How about magic 8 ball?
“Verdict hazy. Sequester jury and try again later.”
June 14th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Wow. I came here expecting another BA angry atheist circle jerk. There was actually some balance to the responses. Balance? Reasonableness? Come on. Snark it up. Don’t you people realize that this is the Internets?
June 14th, 2007 at 8:10 am
That is not true.
God need only show up and perform a verifiable miracle. Say, change the sun to plaid, or move the Andromeda galaxy out of the constellation Andromeda and into Orion in a split second, or make all the planets immediately spin backward without destroying them, or instantly create a human out of dust in front of witnesses - no smoke, no mirrors, no curtains
There’s an infinity of ways a god could falsify the hypothesis that there is no god, and absolutely no requirement whatsoeve that anyone die to find out whether or not there is a god.
The argument that you must die to know whether or not there is a god is among the weakest of the theistic arguments.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:26 am
L Ron Hubbub
Says:
Wow. I came here expecting another BA angry atheist circle jerk.
Hey, give us a break! We atheists don’t have regularly scheduled Sunday circle-jerks to attend, so we have to find them where we can.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:44 am
The Bad Astronomer said: “It’s my blog, and I will write about what I care about. If you don’t like it, there are literally hundreds of millions of other blogs you can read.”
Have it your way. I find it amusing that the last time I left a site in this way, it was because the proprietor turned out to be an arrogant fundamentalist Christian who believed that holding a philosophy that was not exactly the same as his was unacceptable. Now, history has repeated itself in a mirrored form. I hope someone else appreciates the symmetry, as well.
I’ve found that live and let live is a fine philosophy, but it only works so long as others apply it.
I’ll try to remember this place as an education about the world around me, starting with that fantastic debunking of the moon hoax claims, and not as somewhere a person would be written off as a loon for so much as mentioning the words “prayer” or “luck.”
I’d sign this “goodbye” or “farewell,” but you’ve made your position on good wishes abundantly clear.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Wow.
As far as I can see, the BA said that prayer doesn’t work (linking a study). He aslo said that he would prefer that juries used evidence instead of prayer, particularly if he was the defendant.
If you wanted to criticize the study linked, well, that would be reasonable. Or you could take the side that prayer is better than evidence. Or, like some did, that prayer means different things to different people and such.
But where did someone get insulted? If the jurist had said he used astrology to make his decision, the dog-pile would be huge.
To be a scientist you must be particularly skeptical of the things you guard in your heart.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:57 am
But then there is the Anthropic Cosmological Principal which atheists came up with which showed how the universe is in harmony with humanity. When I first came across that it seemed to shout God is the great architect / builder. And this was in the 1980’s long before that theological dead end called Intelligent Design.
But I digress
I am still here
It always behooves us to look at more than one source and in this one http://www.click2houston.com/news/13462549/detail.html it says
The idea that a quick prayer and suddenly the verdict is brought in, does not seem sustainable from that account. According to other accounts, they spent 4 hours, then spent the night in a hotel and continued their deliberation. During that time they had prayers. I suspect the reason they did this can be found in James 1:5 where if you want wisdom, then ask God. It was therefore a request for wisdom to carry out their jury duty, not the casting of bones.
Incidentally the Chron.com account looks suspiciously like this one http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070612/27925_Jury_Rules_Bus_Driver_Not_Guilty_after_Prayer.htm
An obviously biased source. I have seen this kind of thing before, it is lazy journalism. Someone has copied, but I am not sure who copied who, but I suspect it was the Chron.com who copied from the Christian newsletter as it would seem sensational in a tabloid, but “So what” in a Christian magazine.
Phil’s ire needs to be directed at sloppy reporting
As a matter of interest, there was a murder case in the UK that was appealed, and one of the grounds for the appeal was that during the deliberations, some of the jurors had tried to hold a seance to see if they could contact the murder victim. I did try and look this up, but could not find it. I vaguely remember that the the accused was convicted on a retrial, but don’t quote me on that.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Why is my post awaiting moderation, what did I do wrong?
June 14th, 2007 at 9:06 am
@Brittany (and any other believers):
Mr. Plait has insulted you, to your perspective, but let’s look at that more closely. When someone insults me, I take a closer look at why I find what they said insulting. I analyze it, figure out what they said was wrong, and then proceed to point out the problem with what they said. If they apologize, fine. If not, at least I put in my proof as to the opposite of their insult. If I cannot find anything wrong with their argument, other than I found it insulting, it turns out they may have been right. In which case I acknowledge it, and try to do better.
Now, you feel insulted because Phil had negative things to say about prayer. As others have pointed out, what if the story had been about tarot cards, a ouija board, or some other such nonsense? Even worse, what if the jury had decided that 98% of the evidence was wrong, because their prayers told them so? Then, that bus driver would have to appeal, and continue on with the process (possibly, while in a prison cell).
Like Mr. Plait, I find people using the terms “prayer” and/or “miracle” offensive. Most of the time it dismisses the hard work of the people who were actually involved in the outcome. Maybe the bus driver actually had a good defense lawyer, or maybe the prosecutor just didn’t have a case. Personally, I find prayer insulting, in such cases.
Praying for strength is fine. However, if you’re praying for guidance, I might suggest an easier method, that’s better for your knees. Pull a quarter from your pocket and flip it.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:08 am
eewolf,
I believe the percieved insult came from the way Phil said that the fact that the jury prayed ment they weren’t his peers. The (I think accurate) assumption was that Phil was insinuating that they were inferior to his circle of peers.
(Note: I’m not saying that was what Phil ment- he is best equipt to address that. I simply am trying to expain how someone could feel offended)
June 14th, 2007 at 9:08 am
(Now, I’m finished with my rant)
Hey, if believers keep leaving, does that mean we can go back to eating babies and killing puppies… or is that killing babies and eating puppies? I can never quite figure out what I’m supposed to be doing because I don’t believe in God.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Before you leave I’m hoping you, or someone who has voiced similar views, could explain your stance to me. In short: what exactly do you want Phil to do?
No matter what he rags on he is going to get complaints. If he says psychics are frauds, the believers complain. If he dumps on astrology, the same thing happens. So he made a decision, one that every reader is aware of, to concentrate on anti-science and promote critical thinking, regardless of what others say.
So here is where I get confused. You wouldn’t complain if he was posting about jurors who consulted a crystal ball for a decision, even if it was the right one. You would expect him to ignore complaints from those who believe in psychics. All religion, by definition, is similarly anti critical thinking. So why do you expect him to head your complaints when you felt he shouldn’t from astrologers, alties, psychics, etc? In other words, why do you feel you are not being hypocritical?
I’m really asking; I really do want to understand.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Because it’s OK to make fun of the “untrue” philosophies. But if someone goes against the philosophy that some god says is true, then the dissenter is obviously wrong.
And it torques them up because it’s difficult to make supportable arguments against atheism.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:30 am
“It is impossible to use logic and reason on the religious because they counter with their faith-based irrationality.
If you choose a more aggressive approach, they get insulted and go away.
So how do you reach these people?”
Perhaps you aren’t being agressive enough.
If ‘believers’ are irrational, how different is this from someone ranting on the street corner who believes God is speaking to them through the mailbox? That person may not be a harm to anyone, but what if they then proceeded to get violent or make decisions based on what the ‘hear’ from the mailbox?
What would cause someone to value a faith-based approach over reason?
A biological reason? Predisposed to belief? If so, this should be treatable with medication or in fervent cases, incarceration in a facility designed to treat them. If it is a genetic issue, then how different is if from schizophrenia which requires medical treatment and institutionalization.
A learning issue? The facts have been explained to them with reason and they still don’t want to understand? Society has those people now, the rules are known, yet they ignore or break the rules, and are incarcerated with the hopes that they learn the rules again. Re-education camps sound horrible but if not done, then ‘they’ are allowed to roam the streets with impunity. Ignoring reason, the ‘rules’ for how things are.
Lock them out of the decision making processes? If they are stuck in their beliefs, then do not allow them the ability to make decisions that affect others. Laws are made only after careful consideration and upon the latest and best evidence. Not the imaginary whims of an invisible diety. In the case of the jury trial, is someone saying a person is guilty ‘because I believe my shoe told me’ any less of a tragedy than ‘my diety told me?’ Surely someone who believes like this is a danger to others and capable of causing great harm even indirectly.
The only issue here is then there are a large number of disaffected people who have no say so over how their lives are run. This could spell disaster, so again…incarceration?
Is it then not a modest proposal that those who profess religious belief be required to take anti-psychotic medications and, if failing to be cured, be admitted into a facility to ‘treat’ their condition until such time as they are no longer a danger to either themselves or others?
June 14th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Much smoke, little substance. Critical thinking is a skill, difficult to acquire, harder to retain but absolutely essential to our continued survival as a species.
BA, No matter who you knock for their lack of criticality, some will take offense. Just keep on trucking, Bro. We shall progress, one small step at a time,,,
Gary 7
June 14th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that the BA insinuated inferiority to anyone personally? He stated clearly that he thinks prayer is inferior to evidence. If anyone is insulted by that they would need to be insulted by the constitution, too.
Maybe the chip is not on the BA’s shoulder at all.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:56 am
My issue is not with the fact that someone thinks religion is dumb. My issue is with how that stance is being presented. If someone says it in a mocking, condescending manner, which is how I perceived this, and past, blog posts to be (forgive me if I’m wrong, text of course loses most the nuances of a spoken language), then that’s not doing anyone any good. I’m sure many of you have come across this in religious people, telling you you’re idiots for not believing, fire and hell and brimstone and all that. Of course that only gives you negative thoughts about that religion, and biases your future encounters with religion.
If, as some of you have suggested, the jury used crystal balls or Ouija boards or prayed to Allah or had an astral alien guide tell them what to do, and BA decided that was worthy of a blog post in the same manner as this one, yes in fact I would still be extremely upset. Just as I get upset when Christians (for example) start pounding on science. It doesn’t do anything except make people angry, and where does that lead? Further misunderstandings and bitterness and in the end, no good is done to anyone.
I have dealt with enough of this ‘righteous’ anger from people over the years that honestly, I don’t want to have to wade through it to find things that interest me any more.
I realize my position of ‘walking the middle line’ and trying to make peace between the difference stances is not appreciated by most, especially in a place like this. I’m sorry for any feathers I’ve ruffled with my previous comment, or this one. Signing off.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Man, I love all the “Screw you guys, I’m going home” comments!
June 14th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Matherly, where is the hypocrisy? BA pointed out an unacceptable occurance (replacing rationalism with faith) and Brittany (as well as others) are annoyed/angered that BA would dare to say something against their beliefs. When did disagreeing with something and making that view public suddenly become “chip on your shoulder” or “holier than thou”. Just because I disagree?!
As I pointed out quite early on (and now mirrored by many others) had the trial jurors based their decision on some other inane source such as chicken bones, water tests, Ouiji Boards, or Magic Eight Balls then they would have been fine with BA’s comments. Heck I bet even if they would have invoked Allah most would have been just as shocked and criticized them for that. But because the assumption it is THEIR belief system then suddenly believers are angry, outraged, and insulted.
Perhaps you are right and there is some hypocrisy here after all …
June 14th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Ok, Brittany… here are my questions to you, and I sincerely solicit your enlightened opinions:
1. Do you think it is reasonable, logical, or appropriate for a jury to decide the fate of the accused based on any or all of: crystal balls, voodoo magic, spell casting, the positions of the stars or planets, or the tech passed on from Xenu through the writings of L Ron Hubbard?
2. If the answer to the previous question is “no”, then do you think it is reasonabl, logical or appropriate for a jury to decide the fate of the accused based on any guidance from an invisible spirit that we can call “God”, for the sake of a short name?
3. If the answer to 1 is “no” and 2 is “yes”, then rationalize your opinion since such an opinion is inherently contradictory. How is guidance from “God” distinguishable from, say, schizophrenia?
4. If your answer to 1. is “yes”, then rationalize how this can be so given that it has been demonstrated time and time again that such methods are no better than random chance.
If your answers to 1 and 2 are both “no” then we agree.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am
“Why would anyone jump to the conclusion that the BA insinuated inferiority to anyone personally?”
Initial comment from blog entry: “If I found that the jury prayed over whether to convict me or not, they are not my peers.”
Peer definition in dictionary.com
1. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one’s peers.
2. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
3. something of equal worth or quality: a sky-scraper without peer.
4. a nobleman.
5. a member of any of the five degrees of the nobility in Great Britain and Ireland (duke, marquis, earl, viscount, and baron).
6. Archaic. a companion.
4,5,and 6 are out so that leave 1, 2 and 3. Definition 3 seems to indicate a thing not people. If definition 1 then this is incorrect since belief in prayer doesn’t mean a person is considered less of a legal citizen of the US. Unless the ‘modest proposal’ I suggested earlier ever comes about.
Definition 2 then seems most likely and since the blogger doesnt consider them peers or equals then they must either be more or less. From the blog it seems unlikely that they are considered MORE equal, so they are less equal and hence, inferior.
If another person believes they would pray over a verdict they had to render at a trial, should they not infer from the blog that the blogger considers them inferior for their belief in prayer?
June 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I did a post on this and it said it had to wait to be moderated. Is it now a case that only certain posters will be allowed to post without prior vetting?
If my post ever gets allowed, it will not be read because everyone will have moved on.
So what was my offense?
What ever it was I’m sorry, I did not mean t offend anyone.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am
First off, let me state that the BA is certainly entitled to his opinion of people who hold religious beliefs, and can post whatever he wants in his blog.
That said, I do not agree with those commenters who say that anyone posting a dissenting opinion should point their browsers somewhere else.
Someone once told me that the internet will eventually degenerate into a place where people holding same opinion reinforce it by reading ONLY each other’s blogs. IMHO, I think that is the last thing the BA would want.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Probably BA’s bald assertion that “prayer doesn’t work” is what is at the heart of the issue for believers. After all, prayer is one of the pillars of Christianity given that it is supposed to be a Christian’s direct line to the Almighty.
There are many Christians who don’t believe in the “big miracles”, like wrathful earthquakes, faith healing, divine deliverance, etc, but they do still believe that prayer works on a smaller level. That can be anything from praying for strength to get through a troubled time to praying that others would see the error of their ways. What believers tend to forget is that this would still involve some sort of miraculous intervention, albeit on the level of tweaking a few neurons or slightly modifying the flow of hormones though the body. If you say that prayer does not work on that level, then you are essentially saying that prayer has no power to do anything of significance.
Given that Christianity is supposed to involve an intimate relationship which a personal deity, then if prayer doesn’t work, ever, it directly implies that Christianity is nothing but a sham since you might as well be talking to an imaginary friend. I can certainly see why some Christians would take offense at this comments.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:29 am
gerrsun,
So let me get this straight. The BA references “jury of peers” and you bounce from the legal definition (1), to the second definition because it doesn’t quite fit. Instead, you might assume that he used the term incorrectly, but clearly meaning it in the “legal” sense.
In fact, that was done early in the comments and the BA replied that he was unaware of the exact legal definition. I have found Mr. Plait to be quite honest with his own mistakes. It is refreshing.
You have traveled a long way to be insulted here.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I can see why they might take offence, but wouldn’t it be in their best interest to enlighten the poor, lost atheist with the logic and reason that differentiates how praying to a personal deity is different from talking to an imaginary friend, rather than saying “well you suck, you’re picking on me” and storming off to talk to the imaginary friend and ask that said friend save the atheist from / speed the atheist to some punishment?
June 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Sticks, The blog software the site uses has certain filters that result in automatic moderation of posts - it can be hard to figure out exactly why a post gets sucked up by those filters. Sometimes it is vulgarity, sometimes a link, sometimes a problem of some sort with the e-mail address of the poster, and sometimes it’s unfathomable. The idea of the filters it to prevent spam and over the top vulgarity (depending on how you’ve configured them of course).
I would be highly suprised to find that the BA has marked you for censorship - that really doesn’t seem to be his thing. He’s kind of about the open sharing of ideas - even if those ideas prove to be specious. Of course, should the idea espoused be pure hogwash you can also count on having that pointed out to you.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I’m not insulted at all.Not possibly.
I only clarified the definitions of a ‘peer’ and which definition was meant. Definition 1 or 2 are the only two that seem to fit. If 1 was what was meant then the implication is that they do NOT have the same legal status because of their beliefs in prayer. This seems to be a matter for the court to determine.
I’d be interested in it as well as it opens all sorts of issues up.
If it’s true then if you close your eyes during a jury verdict are you required to state that you are just resting your eyes, or meditating else you will be struck from the jury pool?
Will a jury pool have to be monitored before a trial to detemine if they are indeed ‘rational’?
As for traveling, life is a journey not a destination. Or is it a highway?
June 14th, 2007 at 11:16 am
>>>Laguna2, Darth Robo
It;’s not a matter of me liking it or not. Its a matter of it being interesting or not. Never mind. The main point is: im surprised how an adult, educated man like BA is quite often so silly about OBVIOUS stuff. Like a 15yo discovering how our world and society are strange… I mean come on. It’s so …American. Hence the more and more popular saying in Europe: you Americans are silly. LOL
or me its on the same level as the GOP candidates taking the Bible literally, or the (reported) fact, that more than 60% of republican senators do NOT consider evolution to be factual. again - LOL
June 14th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Wow. The conversation sure seems to be all over the place on what seems to me to be a rather simple issue.
The jury was supposed to base their decision on the facts and the law. The end.
They didn’t.
That is a problem.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
To me, the jury’s prayers are a sign of kindness and sincerity - of compassion for both parties and a wish to do the best they could. The members of the population will never all agree about everything (in fact, about anything), so I look for honest effort, which these people seem to have given. Let us not flagellate each other over every point of disagreement. Furthermore, in light of their feeling that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof, they reached the legally correct verdict.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:37 am
But does compassion have any place in the courtroom, justice is suppossed to be blind, is she not?
And what of compassion for the family who lost a little girl? They are to be resigned to ‘Bad things just happen.’ closure?
If the facts show the man guilty, then he is guilty is he not? The implication from the news article are that the man would have been found guilty if not for the compassion of the jurors. The article is just a summary of the outcome so we can’t know the entirity of the trial but that is the implication.
So in this instance, the jurors used compassion borne of their ‘beliefs’ to aquit someone irregardless of the facts.
So their beliefs provide them compassion where the law is to have none?
June 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
2nd Attempt at repost (I am unable to provide sources a it seems all my supporting evidence links are banned so have pointed out where they are banned - please use google to try and find them since I am not permitted to post any links where as other can with impunity.)
It always behoves us to look at more than one source and in this one at click 2 com (Link BANNED)
it says
The idea that a quick prayer and suddenly the verdict is brought in, does not seem sustainable from that account. According to other accounts, they spent 4 hours, then spent the night in a hotel and continued their deliberation. During that time they had prayers. I suspect the reason they did this can be found in James 1:5 where if you want wisdom, then ask God. It was therefore a request for wisdom to carry out their jury duty, not the casting of bones.
Incidentally the Chron .c om account looks suspiciously like this one from the Christian Post
(Link BANNED)
An obviously biased source. I have seen this kind of thing before, it is lazy journalism. Someone has copied, but I am not sure who copied who, but I suspect it was the Chron . com who copied from the Christian newsletter as it would seem sensational in a tabloid, but “So what†in a Christian magazine.
Phil’s ire needs to be directed at sloppy reporting
As a matter of interest, there was a murder case in the UK that was appealed, and one of the grounds for the appeal was that during the deliberations, some of the jurors had tried to hold a seance to see if they could contact the murder victim. I did try and look this up, but could not find it. I vaguely remember that the the accused was convicted on a retrial, but don’t quote me on that.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
First, let me preface my comment - as if anyone could stop me at this point - by writing that I’m neither a lawyer (haven’t played one on TV, either) nor am I involved in any legal profession. Also, I tend not to be as analytical and detail-oriented as Dr. BA and others who are regular posters to this blog. (Yes, I’m saying in my own circumlocutory way, be gentle when I don’t have a reference to cite… because I don’t, just my Swiss-cheese-like memory.) Now that I have that out of the way…
The way the term “peer” is used in legalisms such as “jury of peers” and the way the the general population uses it differ quite a bit. I won’t pretend to speak for everyone at large, but the way I would use “peer” would be to refer to someone with my socio-economic background, my educational background, life experiences, my professional background, beliefs and age, among many other types of population descriptors and discriminators. In other words, someone I would consider more or less like myself. If I remember correctly, the term “peer”, as used when referring to jury composition, assumes a much narrower definition and refers only to those in one’s general geographic area, regardless of any differences among population discriminators.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Okay, let’s look at it this way:
and then this:
If someone is “ninety-eight percent” innocent, according to the evidence, the remaining two percent must be pretty damning for them to have to pray for guidance in a verdict. I haven’t seen what that evidence was, but everyone seems okay with the verdict, even the prosecutor. In that case, the whole thing was a miscarriage of justice. If the prosecutor didn’t care if the man was freed, why did he attempt to prosecute him in the first place? If everyone is so happy about the verdict, why did they have to pray for guidance during the deliberation?
And Sticks, those are direct quotes, from one of the jurors. It doesn’t matter what the media says, if juries start convicting a freeing according to their religious convictions, there goes justice. The verdict should be according to the evidence presented to you, not the voices in your head.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Since this string has turned into a semi-civics course, it is worth rememebering that in addition to the term “jury of your peers” not appearing in the Constitution, neither does the term “separation of church and state.” Instead, the 1st amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In other words, the Constitution is neutral on religion, not averse to it, as many seem to presume.
Also, BA, please move out of Boulder. It is indeed a beautiful location. But its inhabitants are, to be perfectly fair, total freaks. Living there too long leads people to believe that the world thinks the same way they do (kinda like an infection).
June 14th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
gerrsun,
Apparently, the article left you and me with different impressions. I got the impression that the defendant would have been found not guilty by any reasonable jury because there was little or no evidence of fault on the part of the driver. The judge would have instructed the jury about the “beyond reasonable doubt” criterion.
“Kissam said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cook behaved recklessly. ‘Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) being correct….He did all he could….nobody wants to put someone away for an accident.’”
There seems to have been a lot of doubt about the validity of the charges right from the beginning. “Diepraam came under fire early in the case when he indicted Cook for murder in the girl’s death….Diepraam said it was a difficult case from the get-go.’” I took “difficult” to mean “weak.” Diepraam goes on to say, “But to honor Ruth we had to try….”
If I had had the impresssion that the jury had thought the driver was culpable but had acquitted him based on their prayers (possibly what you thought), I would not have written my previous post.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
The Court of Appeal case Sticks was referring to is R v Young [1995] 2 W.L.R. 430, the defendant appealed against conviction on two counts of murder. In considering their verdicts, the jury were required to stay overnight in a hotel. Four jurors met in the hotel and purported to communicate with one of the victims by means of an ouija board. Three of the jurors were upset by the proceedings and the matter was discussed with the other jurors before they returned to court. A unanimous verdict of guilty was returned on each count. Later one of the jurors provided a solicitor with a written statement. As a result the defendant, Young, appealed on the ground that there had been a material irregularity at the trial under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s. 2(1)(c) . Leave to appeal was granted to determine the limits of investigation under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 s. 8 . The appeal was held decreeing that (1) the prohibition contained in s. 8(1) of the 1981 Act applied equally to the Court of Appeal so that no inquiry could be made as to a jury’s deliberations while in the jury room. However, the court was entitled to inquire as to what happened at the hotel as this represented a hiatus between sessions in a jury room during which the jury as a whole was deliberating and (2) what occurred was not merely objectionable but amounted to a serious irregularity. There was a real danger that some jurors may have been influenced by it and that the appellant was thereby prejudiced. The conviction was to be quashed and a retrial ordered.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Which is as much about Juriors deliberating on their own and concerting facts not in evidence as anything else
June 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Chris JT, where did you find that, I tried the search engine on the BBC news site and got Zip (I suppose 1995 was around while the only browser was Mosaic - remember that!!!)
June 14th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Mark Y re: Separation of Church and State…
Hold on there just a minute fella. Let’s make sure we have the full story here.
True enough, those words do not appear in the Constitution, but the principle is most certainly there, and Jefferson most definitely said so not once, but at least twice…
“…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, 1802
“State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” - Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)
June 14th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Trial juries are usually chosen by the parties involved, not assigned without any input from the defendant. I’m not sure if anyone has ever tried to screen a jury for things like “Would you pray about the right descision to make” or whether questions about a juror’s religion are allowed or not allowed (and in which places). They should be allowed, in my opinion. If such quesitons are allowed then you could still get stuck with jurors you don’t like, though, so I suggest finding a Cousin Vinny.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Hey Sticks, i’m a law student so have easy access to law case reports!
June 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
JanieBelle, the problem with these quotes is that in their expanded context Jefferson is, if I remember correctly, always talking about the state not establishing a state church (think the emporer Constantine, or Henry VIII, and so on). It is reasonable to think that this is what he means by “separation of church and state.”
June 14th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
JanieBelle wrote “True enough, those words do not appear in the Constitution, but the principle is most certainly there,”
Many point to the “No Relgious Test” clause in Article VI, Section 3 as a clear endorsement of the sepration of church and state.
A bunch of American guys wrote: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
June 14th, 2007 at 1:59 p