I have recently come across three documents that address a common theme.
The first is a commentary by Paul Krugman in the
New York Times (reg. req'd, available for a limited time):
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
...
One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose.
...
Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.
The second is a commentary by Shadia Drury in the current issue of Free Inquiry (not currently viewable on the web), in which she identifies several factors that make religious-based government incompatible with good government. One of the aspects of religious-based government is what Dr. Drury calls "collective guilt," in which it is believed that a deity will punish a group for the actions of a few. (We recently saw this view brought to bear, in all its nauseating glory, in the tsunami disaster and the September 11 wickedness. Thousands upon thousands of innocents died, but there were pious of many faiths who insisted that these acts represented punishment that
a group as a whole deserved.) One consequence of the doctrine of collective guilt is that, to protect the innocent, government
must intrude into the private concerns of others to prevent them from sinning and drawing the wrath of the Almighty.
The third is the recent decision from the
Colorado Supreme Court, which is certain to draw fire from the "religious right." Basically, the defendant was convicted of assault, kidnapping, rape and murder, and he was guilty as hell. The jury was asked to determine punishment, and it decided to impose the death penalty. It was discovered later, however, that the jury was considering something in the jury room other than the evidence in the case:
The evidence adduced at the trial court’s hearing shows that: (1) one or more jurors brought a Bible, a Bible index, and handwritten notes containing the location of biblical passages into the jury room to share with another juror during deliberations in the penalty phase of defendant’s trial; (2) these extraneous materials contained a passage commanding the death penalty for murderers and another instructing obedience to civil authorities; and (3) these passages were pointed out by at least one juror to another juror before the jury reached its unanimous verdict imposing the death sentence. The trial court concluded that use of the Bible in the jury room to demonstrate a requirement of the death penalty for the crime of murder could influence a typical juror to reject a life sentence for Harlan.
...
The jury deliberated on the penalty phase late into Friday evening, but did not reach a unanimous verdict. Several jurors studied Bibles Friday night in their hotel rooms, looking for passages relating to capital punishment and a citizen’s duty to obey the law, and took notes on the location of particular passages.
When deliberations continued on Saturday, many of the jurors brought Bibles and notes on Bible passages. These materials were "read and discussed." By the end of the day, they had decided in favor of the death penalty. The Colorado Supreme Court (after addressing numerous evidentiary, procedural and appellate issues), then got to the question of whether the defendant's sentence was proper or not:
The Bible and other religious documents are considered codes of law by many in the contemporary communities from which Colorado jurors are drawn.
...
The Leviticus text is written in the first person voice of God and commands death as the punishment for murder. The Romans text instructs human beings to obey the civil government. Here, the State of Colorado was seeking the death penalty. If the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict of death, the trial court would have been required to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Drawn from an array of typical jurors in Colorado, at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence.
...
In so holding, we do not suggest that the jurors who served in this case were unable to distinguish between religious and state law. Neither do we hold that consideration of the text actually produced the death penalty verdict.... Rather, our jurisprudence has developed the ... objective typical juror test for ascertaining prejudice as a means to prevent invasion of the jury's deliberative process while protecting the defendant's right to a verdict untainted by extraneous prejudicial texts. We conclude that introduction of the Bible by a juror to demonstrate to another juror a command of death for murder created a reasonable possibility that a typical juror could have been influenced to vote for a death sentence instead of life; consequently, we must uphold the trial court’s judgment vacating the death sentence and sentencing Harlan to life imprisonment without parole.
If you think that this means that a juror cannot assert Biblical authority to other jurors, think again:
We do not hold that an individual juror may not rely on and discuss with the other jurors during deliberation his or her religious upbringing, education, and beliefs in making the extremely difficult "reasoned judgment" and "moral decision" he or she is called upon to make in the fourth step of the penalty phase under Colorado law. We hold only that it was improper for a juror to bring the Bible into the jury room to share with other jurors the written Leviticus and Romans texts during deliberations; the texts had not been admitted into evidence or allowed pursuant to the trial court’s instructions.
Thus, jurors may use their religious beliefs when making a "reasoned judgment" or a "moral decision." But HOW? Religious beliefs tend to be held through faith, not reason, and not all religious principles are moral. Even more of concern is the notion that these remarks seem to undermine the Court's rationale, as the dissent eagerly points out.
Two justices dissented. The author of the dissenting opinion wrote:
Even so, I also am certain that there is no reasonable possibility that a typical jury would be prejudiced by exposure to the biblical passages at issue here.
What follows is something that is bizarre: a legal opinion in which a judge interprets scriptures, explaining what they mean. The dissenting judge says:
In sum, the jurors were entitled to rely on their own moral and religious precepts, as well as their general knowledge, in making their moral decision whether the death penalty was an appropriate punishment. The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned individual moral assessment.
...
Many people know large parts of the Bible by heart and can quote certain passages verbatim with persuasive alacrity, particularly when the ideas in those passages are as widespread and generally known as those referenced here. It is without doubt that a juror may relate passages of scripture from memory during deliberations, and that such recitation would not even be considered extraneous, much less prejudicial. It makes little sense, therefore, that the exact same passage in written form is somehow enshrined with an authority that the spoken or remembered passage lacks.
The dissent winds up with this bit of inflammatory rhetoric, which mis-characterizes the majority opinion but which is likely to be seized upon by the "religious right":
To presume that jurors who have a religious background cannot distinguish between the written biblical passages referenced here and the written jury instructions - a presumption that must be made in order to find prejudice in this case - is to underestimate their intelligence and to belittle their participation in our legal system.
To sum up, then, if you are on trial in Colorado and are facing the death penalty, the jury may impose that penalty upon you based in part upon religious principles that are not a part of the law; just as long as the jurors don't actually bring a Bible into the jury room. This is a very troubling ruling. Jury decisions, especially those involving life and death, MUST be based upon reason, not faith.
