Deeply Religious People Must be barred from positions of Power in The Justice System!

[Uberpod]

Humans as a species are emotional first, and rational second.



On the other hand, it's not exactly something I'd trust. Without that trust, there can be no real justice. I'll trust fallacious humans over uncaring machines.

There is no need to choose one over the other. We can have both ie, humans who use systematic information processing, humans who know their own limitations.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is no need to chose one over the other. We can have both ie, humans who use systematic information processing, humans who know their own limitations.

It has nothing to do with "choice". It's just what we are: emotional first and rational second. How distant that second is depends on the individual, sure, but that's not necessarily related to religious conviction.

 

[Revoltingest]

You've got cards, now...?

Had'm for decades.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In theory, a justice system based on allowing certain people only to hold positions of power based on their religious or non-religious convictions might sound like a decent idea to reduce bias as much as possible. In practice, however, I think that enacting laws to restrict positions of power based on personal beliefs would amount to little more than thought policing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sigh. Why must religion take the blame for unchecked theism?

 

[gsa]

In theory, a justice system based on allowing certain people only to hold positions of power based on their religious or non-religious convictions might sound like a decent idea to reduce bias as much as possible. In practice, however, I think that enacting laws to restrict positions of power based on personal beliefs would amount to little more than thought policing.

This is why I think it is more important to stigmatize religious fundamentalism to the point where no one who not a religious liberal or moderate can be voted into office. It should be treated much the same way that we treat open racism, and membership in fundamentalist religious bodies should be looked at much the same as membership in a fascist political party.

We have achieved the same result with racism. I see no reason why religious fundamentalism can’t suffer the same fate.

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps it's not religion, per se, but the inflexible Divine Command morality that's often associated with it.

 

[ChristineES]

If you ask me, no one is fit to govern anyone else. I have heard some pretty interesting things that these people we voted for have done: Caught in infedility, skimming funds, cheating to get elected, lying, and all sorts of things. When I vote, instead of voting for the good candidate, I, instead, vote the lesser of the two (or more) corrupted.

 

[ImaTroll]

Deeply religious persons cannot transcend their bias by definition. Take for example these two cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. Both involve belief in demonic experiences that took precedence over evidence. When you become accustomed to absolute beliefs in something with no evidence how can you be expected to evaluate guilt or innocence in the real world?

i was excommunicated from a church. they accused me of bringing demons into the church, so they excommunicated me on that basis.

 

[goodhunter819]

I am not entirely up to date on this issue however I can say that one should have a secular view o as to be fair to those not within your belief in religion and should be able to separate ones self from his or hers bias view and taking a secular stand not within a catholic main opinion

 

[Sand Dancer]

i was excommunicated from a church. they accused me of bringing demons into the church, so they excommunicated me on that basis.

That's wasn't just your troll doll you brought with you?

 

[Valjean]

i was excommunicated from a church. they accused me of bringing demons into the church, so they excommunicated me on that basis.

Seems to me any church worth its salt would simply cast out the demons

 

[Cephus]

Humans as a species are emotional first, and rational second.

They don't have to be, in fact, over time we've started to see that get reversed. Just because it's been true in the past doesn't mean it will be true in the future. We have a choice. One choice is demonstrably superior than the other.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Deeply religious persons cannot transcend their bias by definition. Take for example these two cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. Both involve belief in demonic experiences that took precedence over evidence. When you become accustomed to absolute beliefs in something with no evidence how can you be expected to evaluate guilt or innocence in the real world?

What about removing all people who don't accept free will is real from the system of justice? (atheists, communists, nazi's, evolutionists, scientists)

You are not correct that the cases involved belief in demonic experiences, as then they would not have convicted them, because then they would be innocent because of being demonically possessed.

To make lawyers, judges, police officers take a course on how choosing actually works, not a course on doubting whether or not free wil is real, but a course on actually applying knowledge about choosing to sophistication based on the premise that it is real, that would improve justice immensely.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Deeply religious persons cannot transcend their bias by definition. Take for example these two cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. Both involve belief in demonic experiences that took precedence over evidence. When you become accustomed to absolute beliefs in something with no evidence how can you be expected to evaluate guilt or innocence in the real world?

Perhaps deeply religious people cannot be expected to make rational evaluations?

However, our Constitution is very clear on this issue:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." ~ The United States Constitution (Artivle VI, Paragraph III)

...

Clearly, the answer is not "Ban Group X From Office." The answer is "Don't Elect Religious Kooks."

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You are not correct that the cases involved belief in demonic experiences, as then they would not have convicted them, because then they would be innocent because of being demonically possessed.

Sorry. Demonic possession is not a viable defense in a court of law. End of story.

 

[Riverwolf]

They don't have to be, in fact, over time we've started to see that get reversed. Just because it's been true in the past doesn't mean it will be true in the future. We have a choice. One choice is demonstrably superior than the other.

In fact, we do "have" to be, as it's inherent to our species. I've seen no indication whatsoever that the opposite (which in an individual would really indicate, to me, severe depression) is on any kind of rise. Whether it rises or not would be solely determined by natural selection, and we actually see far smaller birth rates in highly educated areas than in lower educated areas. Not to mention super-high intelligences aren't necessary for survival anymore.

That does not mean a rationally determined action will always take precedence over an emotionally influenced action. However, from what I've seen, even decisions that appear to have rationalization as their basis actually have an emotional motive, which was then reinforced using known facts and figures. Rarely, in my experience, are contrary facts and figures taken into account.

There's a reason why "rationalize" can have an accusatory context.