FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Secular Community Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-19-2003, 07:13 PM   #11
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: OH
Posts: 5,266
Default

partial quote from Belle:
"P.S. After today I firmly feel that all jurors should be chosen by IQ scores only..well maybe emotional IQ scores. Some of these people asked the same questions or asked to have the attorney reinterate a question over and over."

I have been told by many a person that the best way to "get out of jury duty" was to pretend you were hard of hearing. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the game plan here.
Never is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 03:56 AM   #12
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Anyway one particular woman politely raised her hand and simply stated that as a Jehova's Witness she could not pass judgement on another human being.
I know they're not supposed to pass judgement, but isn't that meant in a moral sense? She's not there to decide the state of person X's soul, after all - she's there to decide whether person X did what they're accused of doing.

I don't think people should be allowed to get out of jury duty for that.
Catseye is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 10:25 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Jehova's Witness and jury duty???

Quote:
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Oh, I forgot, another casualty of the war on drugs!
Truth serum?

Boro Nut
Boro Nut is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 10:53 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Madrid / I am a: Lifelong atheist
Posts: 885
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Catseye
I know they're not supposed to pass judgement, but isn't that meant in a moral sense? She's not there to decide the state of person X's soul, after all - she's there to decide whether person X did what they're accused of doing.

I don't think people should be allowed to get out of jury duty for that.
But remember John 8:7 -- Jesus doesn't create any phony loophole permitting one to cast stones if you are just acting as an agent of the legal system and not personally passing moral judgment. Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Period.

So I think the JW has a legitimate Biblical basis for refusing jury duty.

Which returns me to my point that it is Xnty that is flawed, not the JWs in their interpretation of it.
beastmaster is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:18 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.