Just Another Salem," an account by Chester Smalkowski
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
A little bit more on Jury selection from an earlier email.
Edwin introduced himself to the jury as National Legal Director for American Atheists and asked the prospective jury in the Oklahoma panhandle if they could accept the testimony of an Atheist over that of a professed Christian. When the jury looked at him blankly, the judge asked the prospects if they understood the question. One woman spoke for many in the group by asking "What is an Atheist?"
Edwin explained that an Atheist was a person who did not believe in a god or gods or in a supernatural world, and that the defendant and his entire family were such persons. Many of the prospects said they could not believe such a person over a Christian and were struck for cause. To their credit, many members of the jury panel, including two ministers' wives, told the judge they could not be fair to an Atheist in such a situation and were excused.
Edwin also told the prospective jurors that his co-counsel Tim Gungoll believed Jesus Christ to be his personal savior and that Tim was a practicing Roman Catholic who asked if the jury might feel him a hypocrite to his faith for defending Chuck. Ultimately a jury of twelve was seated who had sworn that they could believe the testimony of an Atheist over that of a Christian.
In closing argument, Edwin told the jury that it really should not be necessary for an Atheist to tell them it is wrong to lie under oath, as he reminded them the Christian school officials and the police had done in their sworn trial testimony. "Thou shall not bare false witness against thy neighbor. Ninth Commandment. Eight if you are Roman Catholic," Kagin said.
The jury believed the Atheists. Unanimously.
Edwin introduced himself to the jury as National Legal Director for American Atheists and asked the prospective jury in the Oklahoma panhandle if they could accept the testimony of an Atheist over that of a professed Christian. When the jury looked at him blankly, the judge asked the prospects if they understood the question. One woman spoke for many in the group by asking "What is an Atheist?"
Edwin explained that an Atheist was a person who did not believe in a god or gods or in a supernatural world, and that the defendant and his entire family were such persons. Many of the prospects said they could not believe such a person over a Christian and were struck for cause. To their credit, many members of the jury panel, including two ministers' wives, told the judge they could not be fair to an Atheist in such a situation and were excused.
Edwin also told the prospective jurors that his co-counsel Tim Gungoll believed Jesus Christ to be his personal savior and that Tim was a practicing Roman Catholic who asked if the jury might feel him a hypocrite to his faith for defending Chuck. Ultimately a jury of twelve was seated who had sworn that they could believe the testimony of an Atheist over that of a Christian.
In closing argument, Edwin told the jury that it really should not be necessary for an Atheist to tell them it is wrong to lie under oath, as he reminded them the Christian school officials and the police had done in their sworn trial testimony. "Thou shall not bare false witness against thy neighbor. Ninth Commandment. Eight if you are Roman Catholic," Kagin said.
The jury believed the Atheists. Unanimously.
To sin against the Truth is one of the worst sins. Since this life is ephemeral, it is better that the flesh be destroyed than to sin against Truth.
In our society, criminals are tried and executed for capital crimes. In the sacred society of the Church this also was once the case.
I personally have no problems with heretics, witches, and atheists being put to death when they were subverting the christian states. It is NOT out of hate that this was done in the past, but out of love for the individual soul, the flames offering one last attempt at persuasion to the Truth. This was also done for protection of Christiandom. To sit back and judge ancient and medieval society for this shows extreme ignorance.
Now that the Church has altered her mode we no longer do this. However, this does not mean that such actions in the past were wrong.
I personally long for the days that the old inquisition is restored.
In our society, criminals are tried and executed for capital crimes. In the sacred society of the Church this also was once the case.
I personally have no problems with heretics, witches, and atheists being put to death when they were subverting the christian states. It is NOT out of hate that this was done in the past, but out of love for the individual soul, the flames offering one last attempt at persuasion to the Truth. This was also done for protection of Christiandom. To sit back and judge ancient and medieval society for this shows extreme ignorance.
Now that the Church has altered her mode we no longer do this. However, this does not mean that such actions in the past were wrong.
I personally long for the days that the old inquisition is restored.
No system of justice is perfect. The inquisition however was the closest that one could get.
It is impossible to err concerning judgements on heretics and atheists because if asked directly what they believe...they tell you.
You could look it up. I am tired right now.
General_Paul
Registered Senior Member
All I can say Lawdog- Emperors Caligula, Cladius and Nero should have wiped out the early faith before it grew. Burned the churches, killed or drove out the followers, and criminalize any forms of Christian worship, and made sure the laws stuck, instead of that half-hearted attempt they made up to Constantine. Really Lawdog, burn "heretics" and "athiests" at the stake for subverting the power of the good "Christian Kingdoms?" All Christianity has done since day one is divide us. Judaism- Awsome faith, Islam- I've got no problem with the liberal sects, Christianity- I loathe that faith. There's a difference between following it, and killing men over your beliefs, and Christianity has stepped over those bounds time and time again since the 1st Century AD.
Its time enough we abandoned childish beliefs and moved on with our cultural future, instead of clinging to age old beliefs and turning a blind eye to the bloody history of the church.
Its time enough we abandoned childish beliefs and moved on with our cultural future, instead of clinging to age old beliefs and turning a blind eye to the bloody history of the church.
Lawdog:
The state has a right to protect itself if threatened. That is, it has a right to defend itself. But what is the state? There are several possible answers. Democracies say the state is the people. Dictatorships say the state is the dictator.
Was the state threatened by the many peasants accused of witchcraft in the Middle Ages, do you think?
Oh, get an education. The Inquisitors were, by and large, biased, bigotted and had their own personal agendas, and used their positions to further their own ends.
The mere accusation of witchcraft was enough to get a young woman burned. There were no proper trials, but only things like "trial by ordeal", where if you died you must have been innocent, and if you lived, you had to be burnt.
As a more modern comparison, do you know anything about 1950s McCarthyism in the United States? The methods used there were very similar to the methods used by your so-called "unbiased" Inquisitors.
It is dangerous to be so ignorant of history.
Should self-declared atheists be burnt at the stake, in your opinion?
And as for heretics, I don't suppose it would take much to be a heretic from your narrowly-defined "True Church". I guess an Anglican would be as much a heretic in your eyes as an atheist.
The problem with fundamentalists such as yourself is that you define the good and righteous so narrowly that only the very few make the grade. Strangely, though, you are always among the Righteous, while most others fall short. Funny about that.
This kind of thinking is all well and good, until your erstwhile friends decide that you're not quite pious enough for them any more. Then, it's off to the stake with you, too.
The state has a right to protect itself if threatened. That is, it has a right to defend itself. But what is the state? There are several possible answers. Democracies say the state is the people. Dictatorships say the state is the dictator.
Was the state threatened by the many peasants accused of witchcraft in the Middle Ages, do you think?
Oh, get an education. The Inquisitors were, by and large, biased, bigotted and had their own personal agendas, and used their positions to further their own ends.
The mere accusation of witchcraft was enough to get a young woman burned. There were no proper trials, but only things like "trial by ordeal", where if you died you must have been innocent, and if you lived, you had to be burnt.
As a more modern comparison, do you know anything about 1950s McCarthyism in the United States? The methods used there were very similar to the methods used by your so-called "unbiased" Inquisitors.
It is dangerous to be so ignorant of history.
Should self-declared atheists be burnt at the stake, in your opinion?
And as for heretics, I don't suppose it would take much to be a heretic from your narrowly-defined "True Church". I guess an Anglican would be as much a heretic in your eyes as an atheist.
The problem with fundamentalists such as yourself is that you define the good and righteous so narrowly that only the very few make the grade. Strangely, though, you are always among the Righteous, while most others fall short. Funny about that.
This kind of thinking is all well and good, until your erstwhile friends decide that you're not quite pious enough for them any more. Then, it's off to the stake with you, too.
Kudos indeed. It does not stop with the ten commandments, either:James R said:
Ex. 23:2-3
"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd...
Lev. 19:15
'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Deut. 16:19-20
Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. Follow justice and justice alone...
Deut.27:19
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow."
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
Or shall they?"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd...
Lev. 19:15
'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Deut. 16:19-20
Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. Follow justice and justice alone...
Deut.27:19
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow."
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"
Cris, to your original question "why are so-called 'loving' Christians so hateful?"...
Non-believers suffer from the same injustice, persecution and oppression Christians suffered under the Romans, and Jews suffered under the Egyptians. What you are seeing is what God saw everywhere. That doesn't mean God overlooks it. When Jesus called the Pharisees (the "elite" of his own religion) vipers and hypocrites, he was referring to this (cf. Is. 59). Look at Jeremiah's complaint against God below: the "wicked and faithless" in his day were also people who had God "always on their lips":
Non-believers suffer from the same injustice, persecution and oppression Christians suffered under the Romans, and Jews suffered under the Egyptians. What you are seeing is what God saw everywhere. That doesn't mean God overlooks it. When Jesus called the Pharisees (the "elite" of his own religion) vipers and hypocrites, he was referring to this (cf. Is. 59). Look at Jeremiah's complaint against God below: the "wicked and faithless" in his day were also people who had God "always on their lips":
Jer. 12:1-2
You are always righteous, O LORD,
when I bring a case before you.
Yet I would speak with you about your justice:
Why does the way of the wicked prosper?
Why do all the faithless live at ease?
You have planted them, and they have taken root;
they grow and bear fruit.
You are always on their lips
but far from their hearts.
You are always righteous, O LORD,
when I bring a case before you.
Yet I would speak with you about your justice:
Why does the way of the wicked prosper?
Why do all the faithless live at ease?
You have planted them, and they have taken root;
they grow and bear fruit.
You are always on their lips
but far from their hearts.
Last edited:
The article makes the point that when the majority of people in an area are truly fundamental with their religion, their actions are hideous. Since the article is making that point, why would it want to mention positive things carried out by Christians in such an area, since obviously positive actions amongst fundamentalists really are in a minority.
Most of you have images of the inquisition which were stereotyped into your minds by Hollywood. The same goes with Catholicism in general, you carry around stereotypes that Hollywood has burned into your skulls.
You do not try to understand the age in which these events occured, or the theology that justifies it. People believed that witchcraft is real and that witches are dangerous. They were right. Just because countless people no longer believe this and go about reading Harry Potter books like it was some innocent thing, doesnt mean that it is. One person can be correct while myriads err. You are conformists.
You do not try to understand the age in which these events occured, or the theology that justifies it. People believed that witchcraft is real and that witches are dangerous. They were right. Just because countless people no longer believe this and go about reading Harry Potter books like it was some innocent thing, doesnt mean that it is. One person can be correct while myriads err. You are conformists.