Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Today I did an absolutely hilarious bail hearing. But first the cast of characters.

The Defendant: No-good career criminal and brother of the proposed surety.

The Surety: Sweet-natured, respectable, God-fearing, Sunday-School teaching sister.

I put the sister up on the stand and I ask her a few questions about her brother's proposed bail.

ME: If this court should grant your brother bail, how will you enforce the bail?

SISTER: He will live with me and he will obey all of my rules at all times.

ME: What would your rules be?

SISTER: My rules would be, no drinking, no smoking, no swearing, no television, no phone calls, no stupid friends and he would have to come to church with me on Sundays.

ME: What would you do if he refused to go to church with you?

Now at this point, Sweet-natured sister points at her brother, and she says:

SISTER: You have a choice. It's up to you, now what do you want? Do you want Jesus or do you want the Devil? If you want the Devil, you can stay in jail. But if you want out of jail, you had better get to know Jesus.

The whole court room was silent. It was amazing. I didn't have anything else to say. Except sweet natured sister said it all when she asked her brother:

SISTER: So, what's it going to be? Do you want Jesus or the Devil?

And that's when no-good brother says: "I choose Jesus".

He was released. But the whole hearing was hilarious and I thought I'd share it with you guys.


Mad.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
Heheheh... thats pretty funny. I hope he stays on the path and changes.... perhaps the love of a kind sister saved this poor guy from himself, only time will tell!

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
That religion plays any part in the legal system frustrates me to no end.

- I can use religion to justify mass murder.
- I can use religion to justify rape.
- I can use religion to justify punching random people in the face.
All I would need to do is start preaching an ultraviolent form of Islam.
That religion is used in criminal court in any form has got to be screwing things up, somewhere, somehow.

Is it true that Evanglical Christians make up two thirds of the Christian demographic of the population in the US?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Religion did not play a part in the court's process. Religion had nothing to do with the man's release.

But religion played an important part in the surety's life. And the surety is free to impose additional rules upon the person on bail.

This surety's rules were that her brother had to come to church with her. This rule was not imposed by the court. But the surety can cancel the bail at any time and for any reason.

So this surety was simply letting her brother know that if he does not want to go to church that she will cancel his bail and he will go back to jail.

Hence the choice: "Do you want Jesus or the Devil?"

:wink:

Mad.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
AK said:
- I can use religion to justify mass murder.
- I can use religion to justify rape.
- I can use religion to justify punching random people in the face.
Well, you may be able to in your own head, but the court system, and the law says "no you can't".

I seem to recall that abortion clinic bombers get thrown in jail.
Ultra Violent Muslim terrorists get thrown in jail (or targeted for elimination)

So I don't really think anyone is letting them justify what they do with religion, they just justify it to themselves. Which baffles me because from what I can tell, the Muslim religion is peaceful, as is Christianity.

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
mele said:
Which baffles me because from what I can tell, the Muslim religion is peaceful, as is Christianity.
Agreed. A distinction must be drawn between the doctrines of the founder of a religion (such as the teachings of Jesus Christ) vs. what people today 'interpret' those doctrines to be.

What makes me sick is when people attack religion universally and act as if it is somehow a bad thing: the crusades would have happened whether or not a bunch of white guys got to paint crosses onto their shields, so let's not pretend like Jesus had anything to do with it.

Scatch Maroo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Crusades were predominantly a religiously-motivated war of conquest, then backed for more common reasons, resources and more land - for the land-motivated feudal system of the time.

Religion did not play a part in the court's process. Religion had nothing to do with the man's release.
When you swear people in, you do so on a Bible, right? Therefore religion plays a part in the Court's processes.

Well, you may be able to in your own head, but the court system, and the law says "no you can't".

I seem to recall that abortion clinic bombers get thrown in jail.
Ultra Violent Muslim terrorists get thrown in jail (or targeted for elimination)

So I don't really think anyone is letting them justify what they do with religion, they just justify it to themselves. Which baffles me because from what I can tell, the Muslim religion is peaceful, as is Christianity.
Point 1: No, I and several others can justify it in reasoned debate.
Point 2: It (Islam) is peaceful. So is Christanity. Although both can be disproved depending on which version of the primary religious text you happen to view. Apparently there are nearly two hundred versions of the Bible. I don't know any numbers regarding variants of the Qur'an / Koran, but it's probably safe to assume that it's roughly equal.

Agreed. A distinction must be drawn between the doctrines of the founder of a religion (such as the teachings of Jesus Christ) vs. what people today 'interpret' those doctrines to be.
Adding onto this:
No man is convinced the Bible says what it says. He is convinced that it says what he means.

My earlier post came mostly from a strong desire to see a complete seperation of Church and State. Why? Because:
- Continuation of Point 1:
Using religious doctrines I can justify, in any Muslim court (Because Islam IS the law) killing say a platoon of United States Marines. Now, I don't have the ability to do so sans a squad of Spetsnaz and a well-orchestrated Ambush, but hypothetically speaking.
I can do this because the Marines are "Unbelievers" and according to the Jihad (Which is still applicable although all "Justifiable" Islamic Scholars have disclaimed it as being such) they are still killing Muslims and destroying their property, thus satisfying two tenents of the Jihadic Law and making their (USMC) deaths "justifiable."

At the same time, using "the right" version of a Bible, I can also justify cutting off say two-hundred or so penises as a wedding dowry apparently. More about this from the good Neofacist Pastor Dan. Let's keep in mind I'm referring exclusively to David here, and for the most part need a copy of whatever Bible they're taking this out of to reference.

Now, real quick:
FREAKING MASSIVE BOLD FACED WARNING IN IRRITATING COLOUR TIME!

I do not personally, nor does Mele, or any patrons of SC that I am aware of, support the statements made by Z-Net.



Now legally, these both are in no way justifiable. But that's assuming two things:
1) There is a seperation of Church and State. Hell, like I said with my USMC example, it's justifiable in Islamic Courts, but not any court where Law takes presidence over religion.
2) The law is not the religious text. Again, Islam IS the law, IS the constitution. And all of it's conflicting variants.

Now imagine the disruption you'd get from doing that in America with 50+ versions of Christianity actively practiced. And that's just Christianity.

Religion did not play a part in the court's process. Religion had nothing to do with the man's release.

But religion played an important part in the surety's life. And the surety is free to impose additional rules upon the person on bail.

This surety's rules were that her brother had to come to church with her. This rule was not imposed by the court. But the surety can cancel the bail at any time and for any reason.

So this surety was simply letting her brother know that if he does not want to go to church that she will cancel his bail and he will go back to jail.
Nice to have clarified, thank you. I wonder if it would have been any different had the Surety said "You come to the Mosque with me." Ideally no, but since we all seem to be eagerly Muslim Extremists, for good freaking reason, even that little reference to Islam might become a massive article.

More on Jihad:
- "True" Jihad can only be called by a council of Islamic scholars provided that the following tenents are met:
1) Muslims are being killed.
2) Property belonging to Muslims is being destroyed.
3) The damage is not being done by other Muslims.

That said, it still has some laws, most of which are not being followed in Bin Laden's "Jihad."
1) Cannot kill women / children.
2) Cannot destroy livestock or raze the land.
3) Cannot force others to convert to Islam.
4) Cannot destroy Religious structures.

I'll come back and re-edit this in a minute, because my viewpoints have changed (again) and I need to make several fixes and add more meat to the explanations.
Continuation of the Edit:
- I'll just make more posts as nessecary to deal with other issues.

Overall Point and Message I should have made the First Time:
- That the Surety was allowed to force her brother to come to Church, in my opinion, should not be allowed.
Because in that case, there is no clear seperation of Church and State.

Say the brother wishes to convert? Then the Surety, because he would no longer be going to her Church (Come to church with me every Sunday), would likely cancel his 'free ticket.'
On the flip side, she might also recognize that he's still recieving religious indoctrination irregardless of what he worships.
Alternatively, at some point in the future he choses not to be forced to be subjected to this religious indoctrination (Don't tell me that going to Church is anything different: The padre/priest still preaches irregardless of why you're there. The reason he's there is to spread the word of God through repeated sessions.), then ends up in jail.

I haven't read the United States Constitution, but that somehow seems to be unconstitutional.

If you were to do the same thing but insist that the person attend say, the local Communist Party meetings, would that still be allowed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
I completely agree re: the separation of church and state, so we don't need to get into that.

AK said:
Crusades were predominantly a religiously-motivated war of conquest, then backed for more common reasons, resources and more land.
What makes you so sure of this? In history, when has a state ever found enough motivation to carry out any act lest there was a natural resource to be gained?

Scatch Maroo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
OK, good. It's really nice to see that we're on the same page here. I was expecting someone to put a bullet in my head through the window with a little cross carved on it.

At this point in history, 11-1300, the Church WAS a State. They even had their own lands, and were capable of raising defense forces. And the Church (Particularly the Pope) had amazing political power.

What happened is that the Feudal system was burning itself out. There wasn't really enough land to go around to this number of knights and landowners and suchforth, so it then became critical to get more.

During this process, they made contact with the "Sarceians" or "Eastern Peoples." Then the Pope found out:
"****. They don't worship the same God as I do. Let's take them out."
And everybody went:
"Sure thing Pope, just don't excommunicate me."

And thus we went off to war for a mixture of reasons, one of them, and one of the largest, being religious.

In history, when has a state ever found enough motivation to carry out any act
The Pope threatened excommunication to several leaders. Because everybody was Christian, this was a BAD thing without comparison. That's why they did it so readily.

It's hard for the modern mind to understand that the Church can have so much power, because the only place it really retains this brute-force strength is in the Middle East, and in modern times, it's been exceedingly watered down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
hmmmm
I think Ill leave this one alone.
I dont want to be in the middle of a religeous war at S.C. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
AK said:
At this point in history, 11-1300, the Church WAS a State. They even had their own lands, and were capable of raising defense forces. And the Church (Particularly the Pope) had amazing political power.

What happened is that the Feudal system was burning itself out. There wasn't really enough land to go around to this number of knights and landowners and suchforth, so it then became critical to get more.
This, I believe, lays the foundation for the motivations of war, after which...

AK said:
During this process, they made contact with the "Sarceians" or "Eastern Peoples." Then the Pope found out:
"stuff. They don't worship the same God as I do. Let's take them out."
And everybody went:
"Sure thing Pope, just don't excommunicate me."
I'm still not convinced the pope thought, "Different God, a necessity for war!" but rather, "Different God, no one'll mind taking their things!" I still think that religion was the excuse, but had Europe been land-a-plenty, the pope wouldn't have cared that much 'bout the Muslims.

Do you believe the crusades would have occured had it not been for the dwindling land resources of Europe? This is what I fail to be convinced of (although I am open to it being a possibility).

Scatch Maroo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Do you believe the crusades would have occured had it not been for the dwindling land resources of Europe? This is what I fail to be convinced of (although I am open to it being a possibility).
I'm not saying that the land factor does not play an important part here. Were it not for this, we wouldn't have made contact with the Muslims in the first place and thus would not have the Crusades *at all.* Rather, it would be an exclusively military operation further East, into the Russian Empire.

The land factor is the primary reason they went to war in the first place, as you said. The religious factor is not to be overlooked: Damn near all the objectives, other than "Seizure of Territory" were religously motivated. Apparently this is roughly the same time that we discovered:
"Well ****. They have the Holy Cities and we have a different, better God than they do. Let's take 'em down, nobody'll care."

In a "What-If" scenario, the two religions would have clashed even if the land issue were nonexistant. This is because at the time the Christian Church was extremely intolerant - look at their treatment of pagans. Typically, the ones they didn't kill off they forced into Christianity. The Romans were merely the best tool at the time for this, after that it would be the nearest Feudal Warlord.

Another possible "What-If" is that had the Islamic faith had not had such military power behind it (The whole reasoning behind Jihad is in part influenced by Christianity and the Crusade's racial overteures) then it would have become an 'exclusively religious' thing, with the lands incurred being a side-benefit.

I am by no means qualified to talk extensively on this subject. The one book that I have available to me on this time period makes extensive references to Christianity from an incredibly Pro-Christian bias perspective making me doubt the quality and truthfulness of the information contained therein. In a history text, this is alarming.

I will find supplemental materials - assuming that they exist in this craptastic public library system here - and then continue this in more detail.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top