Should religious people be banned from serving on juries?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/o70bwm/religious_people_should_not_be_allowed_to_serve

I've said it before and I'll say it again that this sub is largely responsible for flipping the image of atheists from the "No Gods no Masters" style of "cool" rebellious types to the modern day stereotype of fat fedora wearing neckbeards who spend all day circlejerking about how superior they are. I also once met a guy who said that as an atheist he still found Richard Dawkins so insufferable it made him want to "ironically" convert to Christianity...and then he did so for real.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

[Big Abraham]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I am an atheist who believes that religion is not much different from the standard scam, with both scammers and victims both existing within religious structures but I voted no here. In most cases, I doubt that religion would play a role in how people vote on said jury.

[John Dule]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states, but clearly the real issue that demands our attention is a Reddit thread that BRTD found about how theists should be barred from jury duty.

I know I've said this before, but it is truly a testament to the intellectual frailty of the theistic worldview that-- after centuries of great thinkers have poured their hearts and minds into constructing rigid logical arguments to support their culture's collective fantasies-- the best counter to secular philosophy that they've been able to muster is "haha neckbeard fedora Redditor." This stereotype may have briefly helped Christians paint atheists as "uncool" during the period when teenage BRTD was discovering the internet, but today it is beyond irrelevant and religiosity among young people is still plummeting like a brick. The only people who these """arguments""" will appeal to are those who are so incurious that they will literally convert to Christianity to "own the atheists," like the person mentioned in the OP. This doesn't sound like the kind of genuine conviction that will help Christianity survive into future generations, to say the least.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states,

Actually no because these bans are blatantly unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Welcome to r/atheism.

[John Dule]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states,

Actually no because these bans are blatantly unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.

Hey BRTD, are there any states with laws on the books saying you can't run for office because of your beliefs? You know, since Christians are so oppressed in our society.

[Big Abraham]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states, but clearly the real issue that demands our attention is a Reddit thread that BRTD found about how theists should be barred from jury duty.

I know I've said this before, but it is truly a testament to the intellectual frailty of the theistic worldview that-- after centuries of great thinkers have poured their hearts and minds into constructing rigid logical arguments to support their culture's collective fantasies-- the best counter to secular philosophy that they've been able to muster is "haha neckbeard fedora Redditor." This stereotype may have briefly helped Christians paint atheists as "uncool" during the period when teenage BRTD was discovering the internet, but today it is beyond irrelevant and religiosity among young people is still plummeting like a brick. The only people who these """arguments""" will appeal to are those who are so incurious that they will literally convert to Christianity to "own the atheists," like the person mentioned in the OP. This doesn't sound like the kind of genuine conviction that will help Christianity survive into future generations, to say the least.

I'm not a religious person and I have no real skin in the game, but Christianity is growing in most of the world. No serious person should be worried at all about their ability to increase numbers.

[John Dule]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states, but clearly the real issue that demands our attention is a Reddit thread that BRTD found about how theists should be barred from jury duty.

I know I've said this before, but it is truly a testament to the intellectual frailty of the theistic worldview that-- after centuries of great thinkers have poured their hearts and minds into constructing rigid logical arguments to support their culture's collective fantasies-- the best counter to secular philosophy that they've been able to muster is "haha neckbeard fedora Redditor." This stereotype may have briefly helped Christians paint atheists as "uncool" during the period when teenage BRTD was discovering the internet, but today it is beyond irrelevant and religiosity among young people is still plummeting like a brick. The only people who these """arguments""" will appeal to are those who are so incurious that they will literally convert to Christianity to "own the atheists," like the person mentioned in the OP. This doesn't sound like the kind of genuine conviction that will help Christianity survive into future generations, to say the least.

I'm not a religious person and I have no real skin in the game, but Christianity is growing in most of the world. No serious person should be worried at all about their ability to increase numbers.

I bet all those Nigerians are converting to Christianity because r/atheism is super cringe.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states,

Actually no because these bans are blatantly unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.

Hey BRTD, are there any states with laws on the books saying you can't run for office because of your beliefs? You know, since Christians are so oppressed in our society.

No and neither are there any valid or enforceable laws that prohibit atheists either.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Yes (jury trial should be discontinued)

[Big Abraham]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

In fact, this is still technically a requirement in eight states relating to public office (although of course, these laws are unenforceable)

Also, how tf did that get nearly 7k upvotes?

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states, but clearly the real issue that demands our attention is a Reddit thread that BRTD found about how theists should be barred from jury duty.

I know I've said this before, but it is truly a testament to the intellectual frailty of the theistic worldview that-- after centuries of great thinkers have poured their hearts and minds into constructing rigid logical arguments to support their culture's collective fantasies-- the best counter to secular philosophy that they've been able to muster is "haha neckbeard fedora Redditor." This stereotype may have briefly helped Christians paint atheists as "uncool" during the period when teenage BRTD was discovering the internet, but today it is beyond irrelevant and religiosity among young people is still plummeting like a brick. The only people who these """arguments""" will appeal to are those who are so incurious that they will literally convert to Christianity to "own the atheists," like the person mentioned in the OP. This doesn't sound like the kind of genuine conviction that will help Christianity survive into future generations, to say the least.

I'm not a religious person and I have no real skin in the game, but Christianity is growing in most of the world. No serious person should be worried at all about their ability to increase numbers.

I bet all those Nigerians are converting to Christianity because r/atheism is super cringe.

I think you very well know this has nothing to do with my point at all, but please, go on.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Only if they actually believe in the tenets of their religion.

Conversely, only people who identify as culturally (insert religion here) should be allowed to serve on juries.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Only if they actually believe in the tenets of their religion.

Conversely, only people who identify as culturally (insert religion here) should be allowed to serve on juries.

imo all juries should consist of three christmas-and-easter boomer catholics, three secular jews, three "it's a philosophy, not a religion" buddhists, and three agnostic intersectional feminist second-generation pakistani-american women who wear hijab to own the deplorables

[afleitch]

I've said it the image of atheists from the "No Gods no Masters" style of "cool" rebellious types to the modern day stereotype of fat fedora wearing neckbeards who spend all day circlejerking about how superior they are.

I mean, if it helps you to push a decade plus old stereotype of online deconstructing former Christians turned atheists as somehow 'modern', that's very on brand for you.

And as someone who consistently talks about how much better his church is, how much cooler his music taste is to the exclusion of virtually all else, your atheist strawman is clearly held together by something that isn't glue...

[Battista Minola 1616]

Only if they actually believe in the tenets of their religion.

Conversely, only people who identify as culturally (insert religion here) should be allowed to serve on juries.

imo all juries should consist of three christmas-and-easter boomer catholics, three secular jews, three "it's a philosophy, not a religion" buddhists, and three agnostic intersectional feminist second-generation pakistani-american women who wear hijab to own the deplorables

tbh imho christians are too privileged already, you should substitute the boomer catholics with three agnostic indian-americans who like diwali celebrations jao

[Torie]

I had a Civil Procedure Law professor who thought juries "sucked." And they certainly are inappropriate in complex civil cases. The UK has done away with juries in all but the most serious criminal cases that go to the Old Baily. I watched one of the last jury trials ever held for a civil fraud case. The judges in a luncheon afterwards (I was on a legal junket for my CLE credits), were all opposed to eliminating juries in civil fraud cases, because they feared it would be perceived if they let the alleged corporate defrauders off, it would be perceived as just part and parcel of the "old boys" upper crust network who go to the same clubs, and yes, the judges all had upper crust Etonian accents, and were all male.

That said, I endorse the UK approach. Few judges in the US have Etonian accents or go to the same clubs.

That last sentence above is "not my best," and I admit it, but I just did it anyway, because I can.  

Oh, I abstained in voting in BRTD's poll. It is for me to know, and him to find out, how I may have voted if I had voted.

[Former President tack50]

I bet all those Nigerians are converting to Christianity because r/atheism is super cringe.

It's not even like they are actively converting to Christianity even, but rather the fact that countries in Africa have ridiculously high birth rates. In fact if anything Christianity in Nigeria is slowly but steadily losing ground to islam since the muslim Nigerians have even higher birth rates.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states, but clearly the real issue that demands our attention is a Reddit thread that BRTD found about how theists should be barred from jury duty.

I know I've said this before, but it is truly a testament to the intellectual frailty of the theistic worldview that-- after centuries of great thinkers have poured their hearts and minds into constructing rigid logical arguments to support their culture's collective fantasies-- the best counter to secular philosophy that they've been able to muster is "haha neckbeard fedora Redditor." This stereotype may have briefly helped Christians paint atheists as "uncool" during the period when teenage BRTD was discovering the internet, but today it is beyond irrelevant and religiosity among young people is still plummeting like a brick. The only people who these """arguments""" will appeal to are those who are so incurious that they will literally convert to Christianity to "own the atheists," like the person mentioned in the OP. This doesn't sound like the kind of genuine conviction that will help Christianity survive into future generations, to say the least.

Yes, how will Christendom survive attacks from great minds like Jerry Coyne, Ricky Gervais, Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, P. Z. Myers, and John Dule?

My chief objection to this sort of radical fideistic form of atheism is not atheists as such. I’m sure many atheists are perfectly fine people. It is rather the sort of claim which compares Aquinas’s arguments for God to a five year old’s belief in Santa, mistaking the rather new “theology” of fideism for all of Christianity; which declares philosophy dead; and which states that since science has not proven God or the afterlife via experiment, it somehow disproves them (thus taking up a rather radical philosophy of empiricism).

[Ferguson97]

There's a much stronger case to be made for only allowing theists to serve on juries.

Lmao based on what

[Utah Neolib]

No, and there’s way too many religious people out there even if you wanted to ban them. I don’t see why you would want to ban religious people from serving on juries.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, atheists are literally barred from public office in eight states, but clearly the real issue that demands our attention is a Reddit thread that BRTD found about how theists should be barred from jury duty.

I know I've said this before, but it is truly a testament to the intellectual frailty of the theistic worldview that-- after centuries of great thinkers have poured their hearts and minds into constructing rigid logical arguments to support their culture's collective fantasies-- the best counter to secular philosophy that they've been able to muster is "haha neckbeard fedora Redditor." This stereotype may have briefly helped Christians paint atheists as "uncool" during the period when teenage BRTD was discovering the internet, but today it is beyond irrelevant and religiosity among young people is still plummeting like a brick. The only people who these """arguments""" will appeal to are those who are so incurious that they will literally convert to Christianity to "own the atheists," like the person mentioned in the OP. This doesn't sound like the kind of genuine conviction that will help Christianity survive into future generations, to say the least.

Yes, how will Christendom survive attacks from great minds like Jerry Coyne, Ricky Gervais, Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, P. Z. Myers, and John Dule?

My chief objection to this sort of radical fideistic form of atheism is not atheists as such. I’m sure many atheists are perfectly fine people. It is rather the sort of claim which compares Aquinas’s arguments for God to a five year old’s belief in Santa, mistaking the rather new “theology” of fideism for all of Christianity; which declares philosophy dead; and which states that since science has not proven God or the afterlife via experiment, it somehow disproves them (thus taking up a rather radical philosophy of empiricism).

To be fair to Dule, none of this, philosophically speaking, is obvious nonsense or anything. It's just that lately it's been advanced mostly by television personalities and "science popularizers" who hate philosophy and thus have no idea what they're talking about, because we live in a decadent and exhausted age in which (for example) someone like William Lane Craig can seem like a theological heavyweight. Go back to the days of Hume or even Russell and this exact same series of debates was much more robustly and seriously conducted on all sides.

[Kingpoleon]

To be fair to Dule, none of this, philosophically speaking, is obvious nonsense or anything. It's just that lately it's been advanced mostly by television personalities and "science popularizers" who hate philosophy and thus have no idea what they're talking about, because we live in a decadent and exhausted age in which (for example) someone like William Lane Craig can seem like a theological heavyweight. Go back to the days of Hume or even Russell and this exact same series of debates was much more robustly and seriously conducted on all sides.

I find it frankly difficult to even root for WLC against atheists. The kalam argument is probably the second worst argument for God’s existence, after the infamous version of the ontological argument, and it comes at the high cost of denying classical theism’s understanding of creation.

It is true that, as David Bentley Hart says, God’s existence has become incredible to many is not due to what we moderns have learned but what we have forgotten. Christianity alone among all the major religions gave birth to modern secularism. The result of it is that although the West now abounds in proximate value, it has done so at the cost of those things of ultimate value.

[TJ in Oregon]

To be fair to Dule, none of this, philosophically speaking, is obvious nonsense or anything. It's just that lately it's been advanced mostly by television personalities and "science popularizers" who hate philosophy and thus have no idea what they're talking about, because we live in a decadent and exhausted age in which (for example) someone like William Lane Craig can seem like a theological heavyweight. Go back to the days of Hume or even Russell and this exact same series of debates was much more robustly and seriously conducted on all sides.

I find it frankly difficult to even root for WLC against atheists. The kalam argument is probably the second worst argument for God’s existence, after the infamous version of the ontological argument, and it comes at the high cost of denying classical theism’s understanding of creation.

It is true that, as David Bentley Hart says, God’s existence has become incredible to many is not due to what we moderns have learned but what we have forgotten. Christianity alone among all the major religions gave birth to modern secularism. The result of it is that although the West now abounds in proximate value, it has done so at the cost of those things of ultimate value.

I'm somewhat bewildered by this statement actually. I get that the kalam argument has its shortcomings, but I would say it is probably the second best argument for God's existence after the classical cosmological arguments (I am grouping them together though you can distinguish between valid versions). Yes it has trouble showing the universe had a temporal beginning and that such concludes with the Christian God and not deism, but still to go even there is a pretty big deal. Compared with the bulk of modern arguments like the moral argument, fine tuning, etc etc, Kalam is quite good.