Monday, March 28, 2005


I found this article today and wonder what any of you out there think of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling. Read the article here.

I can kind of see both sides of it in the light that the jurors are not supposed to have any outside influence on their decision, but then again I think that the outside influence of their life experiences is exactly why we have a jury. These jurors have, in theory, experienced enough in life to get an idea of right and wrong. For a large majority of Americans, part of that influence is Christianity and the Bible. It would be presumptuous to make a discussion of Biblical teachings amongst a group of jurors that were not all equally influenced by the teachings of the Bible, but a personal wish to consult the Bible is not a hampering of the judicial system.

I just want to hear what other people think about that...


Lyle said...

That's freakin' ridiculous. Those phrases have become practically cliche in use, and I'll bet the guy would have no problem at all if one of the jury had read the "turn the other cheek" part of the New Testament. Even so, this is like getting angry at lawyers and judges reading the rulings of past cases looking for precedent to support their own ruling. Why is this any different?

Myles said...

It's different in the judges' eyes because christianity is involved. There seems to be a trend of dismissing anything that could possibly be related to christianity. (as it relates to law at any rate). Again and again you hear the phrase "seperation of church and state," but no where in the constitution does it say that. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

In the case of this jury they are individuals exercising their right of religion. Has nothing to do with the law supporting that religion.

I'm glad to hear, that I'm not the only one that thinks that's dumb.

kim said...

No one else is taking the bait, Myles. You should blog more.