Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Fundamentalism and the Judicial System
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 1 of 17 (334710)
07-24-2006 2:13 AM


According to my understanding, the modern judicial system in stable democracies is ultimately based upon an ancient Greek concept formulated around 500 BCE, essentially that there are two sides to every story. Justice is rendered through using not just testimony, but also forensic evidence, and establishment of motive. Sentencing usually takes any past convictions into account.
According to religious fundamentalism, there is but one inerrant truth not subject to interpretation from any unauthorized personnel. The literal reading of the appropriate text is the sole determinant of truth and therefore justice.
It has recently been asserted that any religiously certified testimony concerning the past that is in agreement with the belief system of a consensus of fundamentalist authorities is the sole determinant of truth, that all physical evidence, undesirable testimony, and establishment of motive should automatically be discarded.
My understanding is that much of the world, even today, does not have a Western concept of justice, that there is the official version of the truth and there is the defendant who must prove their innocence to the religious and/or governmental authorities that are the representatives of the truth.
The idea of justice in Western civilization, which predates Christianity, depends upon a system where the truth is discovered rather than indisputably asserted, where different individuals regardless of identifiable characteristics are supposed to be equal before the law.
I believe the idea of using evidence, reason, and logic to discover the truth is what is done by non-fundamentalists both within and without the justice system. I believe that fundamentalism means the truth is already assumed, and that evidence, reason, and logic are considered acts of hubris, that the truth is an act of faith that is indisputable.
Since under such circumstances, the difference between revealed and discovered truth is a basic philosophy that seperates the fundamentalist from the rest of humanity, would this have an impact beyond science, education, and economics?
Do religious fundamentalists seek to change the Western concept of justice with one more compatible with a belief in revealed, rather than discovered truth?
Please disregard if previously covered. As usual, have no idea where this belongs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Discreet Label, posted 07-24-2006 10:17 AM anglagard has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 17 (334775)
07-24-2006 8:53 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 3 of 17 (334798)
07-24-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
07-24-2006 2:13 AM


I believe the idea of using evidence, reason, and logic to discover the truth is what is done by non-fundamentalists both within and without the justice system. I believe that fundamentalism means the truth is already assumed, and that evidence, reason, and logic are considered acts of hubris, that the truth is an act of faith that is indisputable.
I would agree with this. And the way I feel fundamentalists label logic, reason, and evidence as hubris is by indicating humanity's falliblity through Adam's story. And instead of attemtping to try go beyond what a 2000 year old book says fundamentalists view that there is no point. You could say its some form of nhilism which is based of the bible that its all useless because humans couldn't reason themselves out of a box and cannot act beyond the way GOD says they can.
Since under such circumstances, the difference between revealed and discovered truth is a basic philosophy that seperates the fundamentalist from the rest of humanity, would this have an impact beyond science, education, and economics?
Yes I believe it might, for to say that all truths have been revealed to them equates the notion of a superiority within all aspects and levels of culture. While Christianity does not necessairly preach superiority, if you have all the truths, how could you not start to begin to believe that everyone else is wrong? And then that begins to draw conflict between fundamentalists and any other culture no matter what way you cut it. This superiority will be demonstrated in the language used as well in the manner a fundamentalist will communicate to people in the out culture. They will be 'looked down' upon for not seeing the truth and out culture will consequently not like being treated as an inferior. So yes socially there will be a large impact. I think it might be like the French in the sense that the way French is, treats any non-natives as being out group and inferior...(tentative). And look at all of the France's problems.
Do religious fundamentalists seek to change the Western concept of justice with one more compatible with a belief in revealed, rather than discovered truth?
Couldn't say but frankly, fundamentalism suffocates reason, logic, objectivity and evidence. So it probably could destroy western justice on anything not preached in the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2006 2:13 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by anglagard, posted 07-28-2006 7:03 PM Discreet Label has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 4 of 17 (336170)
07-28-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Discreet Label
07-24-2006 10:17 AM


Clarifications
quote:
Couldn't say but frankly, fundamentalism suffocates reason, logic, objectivity and evidence. So it probably could destroy western justice on anything not preached in the bible.
My concern in starting this thread was that arguments used to trash science are exactly the same arguments that may be used to trash modern justice. These arguments include:
1. The truth of any belief system has already been determined by the select and can't be changed.
2. The select interpretation of events is infallible.
3. A specific set of ancient books are the final arbiter of all knowledge.
4. Testimony of select individuals is the only truth.
5. Physical evidence that contradicts predetermined truth by the select is to be discarded.
6. Guilt and/or innocence is predetermined, not subject to change, and solely the province of the acceptable deity.
If observed reality is solely based upon testimony of the appropriate individuals, regardless of any testimony of the inappropriate individual, or based upon physical evidence, then wouldn't the justice system, as a subset of that observed reality, be subject to the same criteria?
Under the principle of unchangability of the law, how can there be adaptation to new circumstances? How could a judge rule on something not covered in the infallible text? Things like stem cells, traffic codes? pollution? drugs? patents? copyrights? etc...ad infinitum.
Under the principle of infallibility and unchangability of interpretation of the law, how can any verdict be appealed?
Under the principle of testimony of individuals as sole evidence, how does one judge between conflicting testimony? Would it be based upon interviews where fervor of appropriate religious beliefs determines who is telling the truth? Could the truth be extracted from inappropriate individuals through physical persuasion?
Under the principle of discarding all physical evidence, would that not include bloody clothes, exact caliber matches, tireprints, etc. in addition to DNA evidence?
Under the principle that the deity has already predetermined guilt, is the purpose of the court to discover the will of the deity rather than the sequence of events? Could the will of the deity be discovered through historic methods such as trial by combat? drowning? hot irons in the hand?
If science is to be based upon medieval principles, will medieval justice be far behind?
For everyone, please feel free to tell me what a judicial system that, consistent with the fundamentalist principles concerning observation of reality, would be like under the principles of fundamentalist religion.
Also, as a person with an obvious bias against fundametalism, would any representative of that system like to correct my potential misperceptions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Discreet Label, posted 07-24-2006 10:17 AM Discreet Label has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 7:14 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 1:28 AM anglagard has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 5 of 17 (336176)
07-28-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by anglagard
07-28-2006 7:03 PM


Re: Clarifications
For everyone, please feel free to tell me what a judicial system that, consistent with the fundamentalist principles concerning observation of reality, would be like under the principles of fundamentalist religion.
for simplicity's sake, no doubt, a "formula" would be formed by which one can determine who is guilty of a certain crime. possibly, if a woman is murdered, her husband did it. if someone has sex before marriage it is the woman's fault if she did not prevent it and could have. i'm not really the person to propose precisely what these formulas would be andi'm really too lazy to try to come up with more ideas. these may not be actually consistent with what would happen, but, indeed, reasonable examples based on the history of mankind. at any rate, the village magistrate would decide who was guilty and they would be summarily punished and there would be no recourse whatsoever and no real way to prevent him from simply dispatching people he feels are undesirable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by anglagard, posted 07-28-2006 7:03 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Discreet Label, posted 07-29-2006 1:19 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5063 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 6 of 17 (336239)
07-29-2006 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by macaroniandcheese
07-28-2006 7:14 PM


Re: Clarifications
I can understand the bit about the village magistrate dispatching whomever he feels like.
But how do we address the problems about situations not addresed by the text? Does an elite few go ahead and use it because they feel they are responsible enough to use the technology and that no one else is? Or does new development just stop?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 7:14 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-30-2006 1:03 AM Discreet Label has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 7 of 17 (336547)
07-30-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Discreet Label
07-29-2006 1:19 AM


Re: Clarifications
i have no idea.
but remember the dark ages when the church ruled the world? they weren't called the dark ages because they cured so many diseases...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Discreet Label, posted 07-29-2006 1:19 AM Discreet Label has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 1:22 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 17 (336548)
07-30-2006 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by macaroniandcheese
07-30-2006 1:03 AM


Footnote on Dark Ages
This false idea that the church caused the "Dark Ages" just has to be corrected AGAIN. The Dark Ages were caused by the simple reversion of Europe to its USUAL condition of darkness after the Roman Empire fell and its influence was no longer strong in Europe.
That left the barely established European Church as the only civilizing influence, and that is how it functioned, more and more as it grew over the centuries. It was a force for order and morality among the warring tribes, and it preserved much of the works of civilization.
Unfortunately it became a political power itself. At first that no doubt had advantages for organizing and civilizing Europe, but power corrupts and they became no better than any worldly power, and completely lost their original spiritual inspiration. By the later years of the Middle Ages they were teaching the people mostly corrupt doctrines and superstitions instead of the gospel. Finally Christianity had to reclaim its original inspiration and overthrow the corrupted church, and then the good effects of those years of civilizing the dark continent finally came to fruition.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-30-2006 1:03 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-30-2006 1:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-30-2006 11:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 17 (336551)
07-30-2006 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by anglagard
07-28-2006 7:03 PM


Re: Clarifications
I can't possibly address the specifics of your posts on this subject and I'm not even going to try. All I want to say is that it was Bible believers since the Reformation particularly, but also great Christian moral leaders before that time, who created the best and fairest legal systems the world had ever seen. If the Greeks had anything to do with it, this is only because of the Christians who recognized the value of their principles. But a great deal of it was developed from a specifically Christian point of view.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by anglagard, posted 07-28-2006 7:03 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nator, posted 07-31-2006 8:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 07-31-2006 9:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 17 (336557)
07-30-2006 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
07-30-2006 1:22 AM


Re: Footnote on Dark Ages
i love how you use the word "tribes".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 1:22 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 17 (336620)
07-30-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
07-30-2006 1:22 AM


Re: Footnote on Dark Ages
This false idea that the church caused the "Dark Ages" just has to be corrected AGAIN. The Dark Ages were caused by the simple reversion of Europe to its USUAL condition of darkness after the Roman Empire fell and its influence was no longer strong in Europe.
This seems to ignore the fact that at the same time the Spanish Caliphate was a bustling and tolerant civilization with the largest metropolitan areas in all of Europe such as Cordoba, with running water, with health care, with universities and a far higher standard of living, with Christian Monasteries and Nunneries.
That left the barely established European Church as the only civilizing influence, and that is how it functioned, more and more as it grew over the centuries. It was a force for order and morality among the warring tribes, and it preserved much of the works of civilization.
What? Barely established? The only civilizing influence? It was the Church that carried out many of the barbarities of the era. You yourself admit that it became a political power, but then you retreat into your "not real Christians" copout and defense. That is an interesting tactic but seems really selfserving. They were Christians, not very good Christians but Christians none the less. To connect the Dark Ages with Protestant Revolution (or Reformation depending on your POV) is just silly.
The Dark Ages extended from around 400CE to around 1000CE. The Protestant Revolution was a 16th. Century event. Just as with the fall of the Soviet Union, communication led to the end of the Dark Ages. Travelers and in particular Monks and Nuns returning from Caliphate Spain brought back both the knowledge to be found there as well as tales of the wonderous cities and universities and running water and plumbing and the world of ideas and free thought and Jews and Muslims and Christians living together and debating as equals and teh markets and foods found under the rule of the Caliphs.
But that did not change the fact that the driving force of the Christian Church, throughout much of history was the destruction of the civilizations it found, as can be seen in this painting "The Truimph of Christianity."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 1:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-30-2006 2:07 PM jar has not replied
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-31-2006 1:27 AM jar has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 12 of 17 (336645)
07-30-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
07-30-2006 11:41 AM


Re: Footnote on Dark Ages
not to mention that the church is the entity that ordered the destruction of libraries and intellectual material... presumably because it had been tainted by "pagan" or "islamic" input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-30-2006 11:41 AM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 17 (336800)
07-31-2006 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
07-30-2006 11:41 AM


Re: Footnote on Dark Ages
This false idea that the church caused the "Dark Ages" just has to be corrected AGAIN. The Dark Ages were caused by the simple reversion of Europe to its USUAL condition of darkness after the Roman Empire fell and its influence was no longer strong in Europe.
This seems to ignore the fact that at the same time the Spanish Caliphate was a bustling and tolerant civilization with the largest metropolitan areas in all of Europe such as Cordoba, with running water, with health care, with universities and a far higher standard of living, with Christian Monasteries and Nunneries.
The caliphate in question was not established until the 10th century, FAR into the "dark ages." What is your point?
Sispain.org
quote:
By the middle of the 8th century, the Muslims had completed their occupation and the Umayyad prince Abd al-Rahman, who had fled from the Abbasid slaughter of 750 A.D., took refuge among the Berbers. Finally, supported by one of the Peninsular Muslims tribes, the Yemenies, he managed to defeat, in 755, the Abbasid governor of Al-Andalus and have himself proclaimed in Cordoba Emir, independent of Damascus. In the first thrid of the 10th century, one of the Spanish Umayyads, Abd al- Rahman III, restored and extended the Al-Andalus emirate and became the first Spanish Caliph.
When I said the church was barely established in Europe I clearly meant at the fall of the Roman Empire, 6 centuries earlier.
That left the barely established European Church as the only civilizing influence, and that is how it functioned, more and more as it grew over the centuries. It was a force for order and morality among the warring tribes, and it preserved much of the works of civilization.
What? Barely established? The only civilizing influence? It was the Church that carried out many of the barbarities of the era. You yourself admit that it became a political power, but then you retreat into your "not real Christians" copout and defense. That is an interesting tactic but seems really selfserving. They were Christians, not very good Christians but Christians none the less. To connect the Dark Ages with Protestant Revolution (or Reformation depending on your POV) is just silly.
You are talking about the later Middle Ages when the church's apostasy was in full bloom.
The Dark Ages extended from around 400CE to around 1000CE. The Protestant Revolution was a 16th. Century event.
Yes, the very dates I had in mind. And your point is?
Just as with the fall of the Soviet Union, communication led to the end of the Dark Ages. Travelers and in particular Monks and Nuns returning from Caliphate Spain brought back both the knowledge to be found there as well as tales of the wonderous cities and universities and running water and plumbing and the world of ideas and free thought and Jews and Muslims and Christians living together and debating as equals and teh markets and foods found under the rule of the Caliphs.
You are just throwing out odd bits of information without placing them in time. What years are you talking about? Brought knowledge to whom when? And so what?
But that did not change the fact that the driving force of the Christian Church, throughout much of history was the destruction of the civilizations it found, as can be seen in this painting "The Truimph of Christianity."
Oh jar, what marvelous EVIDENCE there, a PAINTING by somebody to illustrate some personal opinion of his. You must be joking.
There WAS no civilization in Europe proper when the Roman Empire fell. What are you talking about? In 400 AD Europe was nothing but a bunch of tribes, Franks and Goths and Celts and so on. I gather Spain had been more civilized by the Roman Empire than other parts of Europe in those early years though.
And , the Church DID preserve the pagan classics and pass them on to Europe. This page of Schaff's History of the Church covers the period of mostly stagnation in the church of the middle ages, mentions the ABSENCE of libraries and claims that the old libraries had been destroyed by the BARBARIANS. There is no hint that Christianity had any desire to do away with libraries, but quite the reverse.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 07-30-2006 11:41 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by anglagard, posted 07-31-2006 9:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 17 by ReverendDG, posted 08-01-2006 12:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 17 (336858)
07-31-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-30-2006 1:28 AM


Re: Clarifications
quote:
All I want to say is that it was Bible believers since the Reformation particularly, but also great Christian moral leaders before that time, who created the best and fairest legal systems the world had ever seen.
Like who?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 1:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 15 of 17 (337063)
07-31-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-30-2006 1:28 AM


Further Clarifications
The idea I am trying to get across is that there is a methodology to religious belief, to scientific, and to judicial systems.
The methodology of the modern judicial system is to examine the scene of the crime, to gather physical evidence, to create a hypothesis of what occurred, and to determine the primary actors. The incident is then brought to trial where the physical evidence is evaluated, the primary actors testify as to their interpretation of events, testimony of principal actors are elicited, competing hypothesis of reality including potential motives are evaluated, then a verdict is rendered.
In trials by jury, one is supposed to be judged by their peers. Such peers are supposed to be free of prejudicial bias and be able to understand the communicated testimony to be able to render a just verdict.
In the methodology of modern science, one examines the observed phenomena, gathers physical evidence, creates a hypothesis which explains what has occured/is occuring, compares such a hypothesis to primary authorities in the field (literature review, which usually happens at an earlier stage). Then the hypothesis, physical evidence, supporting observations, and documentation are submitted for publication before a board/jury of peers who are supposed to be free of prejudicial bias and be expert enough in the given field of inquiry to be able to render a verdict resembling truth. The hypothesis is then subject to continuous testing in order to replicate results and/or falsify the theory.
Do you see the similarity between modern judicial procedures and modern scientific procedures? The largest difference appears to me that court judgements may be appealed a discrete number of times while scientific theories are subject to continuous examination and judgment.
As to the methodology of modern religious belief systems, there is a lot of varience, however for purposes of this argument, I would like to focus on the fundamentalist viewpoint of textural literalism and inerrency as opposed to less fundamentalist systems.
As best I can tell, the methodology of the fundamentalist religious belief system means taking a given text as literal and inerrent. All examination of phenomena must fit the text, any hypothesis concerning phenomena contrary to the text is discarded. All physical evidence is subordinate to the text, therefore any physical evidence that may contradict the inerrent text is discarded or interpreted as supporting the text regardless of how much convolution of interpretation is required. There are no peers, no evaluation, no discussion, only assertion based upon the literal reading of the inerrent text. The judgment of reality is thus rendered.
Do you see the difference between modern judicial and scientific methodology and fundamentalist religious methodology?
I have served in juries twice, the first time was a combined DWI, reckless driving, open container trial. In the trial, the arresting officer testified the driver was speeding down the interstate, lost control, and then skidded off the asphalt and through a pasture for hundreds of feet. Upon exiting the vehicle the defendent was disoriented. The defendant testified he was not drunk. No physical evidence was shown, it was the officer's word against the defendant.
When we deliberated, four said not guilty because the officer failed to provide results from a breathilyzer or blood test common in such incidents, therefore it was simply the matter of one person's word against another, and therefore under the ideal of presumed innocent until proven guilty the defendant was not guilty of DWI. The argument swayed the fifth juror within five minutes but the sixth held out for conviction. Her argument was that she hated people who drove under the influence, therefore anyone accused of such a crime was guilty because to do less was to support such behavior. It took several hours for the five of us to convince the sixth that accusation does not equal proof, that the officer could have easily administered tests to provide colobarating evidence, and therefore it was a matter of one person's word against another. The verdict was innocent of DWI and open container but guilty of reckless driving.
Months later I met the officer at the local bar, and apologised for not being able to render a verdict in his favor but that it could not be done without colloborating evidence because of the presumed innocent clause. He replied that we should have ruled in his favor as he was a policeman and the defendent was not, therefore his testimony was true and defendants was false.
Under a fundamentalist judicial system, would the presumption of innocence disappear? Would the testimony of an authority figure be more trustworthy than that of an ordinary citizen? Would the verdict be known before the trial began, the purpose of the trial being solely to bring forth testimony and evidence to support the predetermined verdict?
This is the way the justice system works in many nations outside of the USA, now and in the past. Authority figures are always right, verdicts are predetermined, showcase trials are used to bolster the case of the state not to aid the accused, and the presumption is one of guilt, not innocence.
Some fundamentalists appear unwilling to compatementalize their faith-based system of literalism and inerrency and argue that science should change its methodology to fit fundamentalist methodology. Since they obviously are against the methodology of science, are they not also against the very similar methodology of the modern justice system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-30-2006 1:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024