Thinking Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 After reading the many comments about the case which has been brought against Thomas S. Monson by Tom Phillips, I think that many (including critics) have already made up their minds about which way it should be decided. If the case does go to court and you were in a position of judge or juror, could you be unbiased and listen to and weigh the evidence as it is presented?
why me Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) If the judge is an atheist, it may be hard for her to be unbiased. If the judge is antimormon, it may be hard for her to be unbiased. it all depends on the belief system of the judge. But then again, if she is a born again christian, it may be hard for her to be unbiased. In other words this is a biased case already. In no way would such a claim be made against Islam and have its day in court. And in Islam all muslims must pay a 2.5 percent tithe in Britain. It is one of the five pillars of islam. Should the UK court challenge the truth claims of Islam? No way will that ever happen. Edited February 9, 2014 by why me
Palerider Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 If the judge is an atheist, it may be hard for her to be unbiased. If the judge is antimormon, it may be hard for her to be unbiased. it all depends on the belief system of the judge. But then again, if she is a born again christian, it may be hard for her to be unbiased. In other words this is a biased case already. In no way would such a claim be made against Islam and have its day in court. And in Islam all muslims must pay a 2.5 percent tithe in Britain. It is one of the five pillars of islam. Should the UK court challenge the truth claims of Islam? No way will that ever happen. Still you have said some thing very interesting and deeper than you may realize. The only way Mormons win is when another pro- Mormon is judging their case. They don't win by a preponderance of the facts.
thesometimesaint Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 The jury question is not can you be unbiased. But can you restrict your verdict to the evidence presented. The presumption is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty by that evidence.
why me Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Still you have said some thing very interesting and deeper than you may realize.The only way Mormons win is when another pro- Mormon is judging their case. They don't win by a preponderance of the facts.The mormon church would fair well in the United States court system because the lds church is recognized as a good church with congresspersons and senators. But in england, there is still a prejudice about mormons. They are a subgroup seen as a little strange. Or the church is seen as a sect---easy to bring to court and punish. Islam is a different matter. The muslims would take to the streets, a jihad would be called and british embassies burned. And yet, muslims are paying their own tithe and in no way would a muslim leader be called into a uk court to answer truth claims. 1
why me Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 The jury question is not can you be unbiased. But can you restrict your verdict to the evidence presented. The presumption is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty by that evidence.No muslim leader would ever be called in front of a judge to answer truth claims about islam and tithing.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 After reading the many comments about the case which has been brought against Thomas S. Monson by Tom Phillips, I think that many (including critics) have already made up their minds about which way it should be decided. If the case does go to court and you were in a position of judge or juror, could you be unbiased and listen to and weigh the evidence as it is presented?No one could win and decision binding...somI would have to say other.
3DOP Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) deleted. Edited February 9, 2014 by 3DOP
urroner Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Still you have said some thing very interesting and deeper than you may realize.The only way Mormons win is when another pro- Mormon is judging their case. They don't win by a preponderance of the facts.Palerider, it's like TSS said, it's not a matter of being biased or unbiased, it's about being disciplined in judgement. Everybody is biased, even if it's a little. For example, I love it when people say that if I could read the Bible with an unbiased mind, I would interpret it just like they do. Nobody can read the Bible with an unbiased mind. It's biased, even a little, one way or another.I was once on a jury and we had to determine the innocence of a man who had been accused of breaking into a house and stealing some things. When we got together after the trial and take an initial poll, three of us found him not guilty and three of us found him guilty. Funny thing is, we all "knew" the guy was guilty as hell, but the state didn't prove its case. The lawyer was sloppy and treated us like we already had declared the defendant guilty. Eventually we ended up finding him not guilty. Were we biased against the defendant, heck yes. The guy was pond scum, plain and simple. We were also able to lay aside these biases and do what the law asked us to do. Are you saying that, in the case of Pres. Monson, the judges in England can't do the same with their biases?
Palerider Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Palerider, it's like TSS said, it's not a matter of being biased or unbiased, it's about being disciplined in judgement. Everybody is biased, even if it's a little. For example, I love it when people say that if I could read the Bible with an unbiased mind, I would interpret it just like they do. Nobody can read the Bible with an unbiased mind. It's biased, even a little, one way or another. I was once on a jury and we had to determine the innocence of a man who had been accused of breaking into a house and stealing some things. When we got together after the trial and take an initial poll, three of us found him not guilty and three of us found him guilty. Funny thing is, we all "knew" the guy was guilty as hell, but the state didn't prove its case. The lawyer was sloppy and treated us like we already had declared the defendant guilty. Eventually we ended up finding him not guilty. Were we biased against the defendant, heck yes. The guy was pond scum, plain and simple. We were also able to lay aside these biases and do what the law asked us to do. Are you saying that, in the case of Pres. Monson, the judges in England can't do the same with their biases? "Are you saying that, in the case of Pres. Monson, the judges in England can't do the same with their biases?" No, I'm saying that "Why me" has set exactly those parameters by his statement that, neither atheist, anti-mormon, or born-again Christian judge, could easily judge the case in an unbiased fashion. By doing so, "Why me" has overtly revealed a lack of trust in nearly anyone other than a pro-mormon to fairly judge the case, rather than relying on the "facts" of Mormonism's foundational stories to support themselves. I believe that "lack of trust" is actually born out of a latent lack of faith in the stories themselves. This reminds me of Joseph Smith always attempting to have the legal complaints against him, adjudicated in Nauvoo where he always had a "friendly" judge at hand.
Five Solas Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) I voted yes. I've served on a jury before (and voted for acquittal in a case where the government's charge was "reckless endangerment"). And I'm mindful that we Christians assert doctrines that are invariably controversial outside of the Christian faith (e.g., a Triune God, creation ex nihilo, the incarnation, the hypostatic union). --Erik Edited February 9, 2014 by Five Solas
california boy Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 I wouldn't be bias about the facts of the case. I would be bias that it was even brought to the courts. Any religious belief should not be decided by the courts. There is not a single religion that does not have some beliefs that can never be proven in a court of law. 1
Recommended Posts