Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Ignorance or what?


Recommended Posts

  • Members



I disagree with you on a lot of fronts. First of all, it is never wise to represent oneself because you are so biased in favor of your own position that you can't be relied upon to adequately carry out the representation. You need someone who can tell you when your cause is a loser and its time to fold. Another thing is that we didn't invent "common law." Common law is a natural creature born out of fairness and equity.

If you have a house for sale, and you know that it has a leaky roof, but you represent to me that the roof doesn't leak with the intent that I believe you and will therefore buy the house, you've committed common law fraud. We don't need a law written by the government to tells us that. It's common law. It's not fair and equitable and you shouldn't be able to get away with it.

The law and the government are not the same thing. Even without the government you would have law and those who study and become proficient in the law. And I wasn't intending to be arrogant with my statement, which I fully believe is true. The way our world has evolved, we cannot get a long without lawyers without totally changing the way we live. From the moment you are born (from the patent lawyer that developed the tools and medicine to carry out a successful birth) to your death (the estate attorney who wrote your will and/or probated your estate) you will need lawyers. There is no getting around it. And everything needs lawyers: dogs, cows, houses, skyscrapers, businesses, cars . . . all need lawyers. We have woven ourselves into every fabric of society.

From what you've described, it sounds like you are looking for a theocracy (where the laws are based on a particular religion, or the majority's interpretation of that religion), which you will never find in this country. That is, in fact, one of the exact reasons our country was founded in the first place, to escape those that though man should be governed by a particular religious idea of governance.


I know that we disagree on many fronts, pt, and there will be many, many others who will disagree with me as well, I'm sure. (I could even change my mind, but I doubt it. We'll just have to agree to disagree :wink) I understand that we have a gov't set up here in the U.S. and I understand the way it works, but what I am saying that it is not ideal. Am I looking for a Theocracy, you betcha, and it is on the horizon..........the Bible says the Lord is going to return and he will rule with rod of iron. That is the best form of gov't I could ever imagine! I can see your point when you say that our country was founded to "escape" a religious idea of governance, but if you get right down to it....when we refuse to start from the Biblical laws over right and wrong, all you have left is someone else's opinion based on a false religion or man's own cooked up opinion coming from sinful flesh. Anything coming from man is biased toward sin no matter how good of a person they are because they are not perfect in every area. God is perfect! His laws are perfect! Which is why our forefathers of this nation based our Constitution and the rights thereof on Biblical beliefs. That is why the 10 Commandments have been prominently displayed in our nation's courtrooms until recent years. Our country has been turning away from God's perfect Word and that is why our nation is in shambles. People "need" lawyers to solve disputes because they refuse to obey God's Word. Don't worry, you certainly have job security as a lawyer, not because as you've said lawyers have "woven ourselves into every fabric of society", but because people are just sinful, and it is only going to get worse. One last thing, you said that "we didn't invent common law..." Well, on at least one website I saw the word "invent" and on a few others it implied it with different wording. For instance:

"The system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws."

"Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction."

The last underlined part in quotation marks is what bothers me about "common law". Again, I'm certainly no student of law, but it would seem to me that if you have a few bad judges, with bad opinions, making bad decisions, setting bad precedent, then you have bad things happening...........even if that bad judge is removed, I'm assuming his past decisions are not? That is dangerous, and that was my point. You see, I try (though I don't always succeed) to always start with the Bible as my foundation, and I try and view everything through it. By our society's standard, I could not be a judge, because I would be "bringing my own opinions" to the bench (an arguement that I heard concerning the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.....that she could separate herself from her personal opinions about abortion--right!) I find it hard to believe anyone does that on a regular basis, after all, our opinions are formed by our beliefs and directly influence our actions....if they didn't, we would be betraying ourselves. In my case, I would be betraying God...........and that is not an option. I hope that you understand better what I meant now. :icon_mrgreen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members



I know that we disagree on many fronts, pt, and there will be many, many others who will disagree with me as well, I'm sure. (I could even change my mind, but I doubt it. We'll just have to agree to disagree :wink) I understand that we have a gov't set up here in the U.S. and I understand the way it works, but what I am saying that it is not ideal. Am I looking for a Theocracy, you betcha, and it is on the horizon..........the Bible says the Lord is going to return and he will rule with rod of iron. That is the best form of gov't I could ever imagine! I can see your point when you say that our country was founded to "escape" a religious idea of governance, but if you get right down to it....when we refuse to start from the Biblical laws over right and wrong, all you have left is someone else's opinion based on a false religion or man's own cooked up opinion coming from sinful flesh. Anything coming from man is biased toward sin no matter how good of a person they are because they are not perfect in every area. God is perfect! His laws are perfect! Which is why our forefathers of this nation based our Constitution and the rights thereof on Biblical beliefs. That is why the 10 Commandments have been prominently displayed in our nation's courtrooms until recent years. Our country has been turning away from God's perfect Word and that is why our nation is in shambles. People "need" lawyers to solve disputes because they refuse to obey God's Word. Don't worry, you certainly have job security as a lawyer, not because as you've said lawyers have "woven ourselves into every fabric of society", but because people are just sinful, and it is only going to get worse. One last thing, you said that "we didn't invent common law..." Well, on at least one website I saw the word "invent" and on a few others it implied it with different wording. For instance:

"The system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws."

"Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction."

The last underlined part in quotation marks is what bothers me about "common law". Again, I'm certainly no student of law, but it would seem to me that if you have a few bad judges, with bad opinions, making bad decisions, setting bad precedent, then you have bad things happening...........even if that bad judge is removed, I'm assuming his past decisions are not? That is dangerous, and that was my point. You see, I try (though I don't always succeed) to always start with the Bible as my foundation, and I try and view everything through it. By our society's standard, I could not be a judge, because I would be "bringing my own opinions" to the bench (an arguement that I heard concerning the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.....that she could separate herself from her personal opinions about abortion--right!) I find it hard to believe anyone does that on a regular basis, after all, our opinions are formed by our beliefs and directly influence our actions....if they didn't, we would be betraying ourselves. In my case, I would be betraying God...........and that is not an option. I hope that you understand better what I meant now. :icon_mrgreen:


Your first mistake is using lay dictionaries to define words. Dictionaries are irrelevant now. Context is everything. Although we can be said to have "established" the common law in that we have developed precedent, we cannot be said to have invented common law any more than we can be said to have created "honesty" or "equity" or "fairness." Another problem with your "definitions" (let's just call them "unsubstantiated opinions") is that in England you don't have juries, so a judge will be setting the precedent. However, here in the U.S., we are still so immature and foolish that we leave important decisions to uneducated biased people. Now, even these decisions end up being made by judges in the end, but only after appeal upon appeal. Our legal system will remain inferior until there is a designated group, or class, that becomes the sole arbitors of all things legal. Lawyer, judge and jury all in one, without any influence from the laity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think I really want a set of juries to a group of snobs either (high class people with alot of education)

our system force higher class to lower themselves and work with people who are inferior.


So everyone with a lot of education and from a supposedly higher class are now automatically "snobs." This is a prime example of a biased opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

However, here in the U.S., we are still so immature and foolish that we leave important decisions to uneducated biased people. Now, even these decisions end up being made by judges in the end, but only after appeal upon appeal. Our legal system will remain inferior until there is a designated group, or class, that becomes the sole arbitors of all things legal. Lawyer, judge and jury all in one, without any influence from the laity.


pt, that is absolutely one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard, and I really am surprised that it's coming from you!

The system we have now works when it is done right: our forefathers set up the system of trial by a jury of peers - did it ever occur to you that possibly they did that BECAUSE they didn't want judges making law? Hmmmm - could that even be why they created the separation of powers on the federal level?

Our legal system had become inferior because judges have adopted the idea that they can legislate from the bench. And because too many people on the jury don't understand that they can actually follow the constitution while they are in the jury.

It's a real shame, pt, that our forefathers were so off the mark to create an inferior justice system. Not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



So everyone with a lot of education and from a supposedly higher class are now automatically "snobs." This is a prime example of a biased opinion.


And yours isn't? That we have an inferior justice system because uneducated people sit on the jury instead of just letting a judge decide?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



And yours isn't? That we have an inferior justice system because uneducated people sit on the jury instead of just letting a judge decide?


LuAnne, Don't let the little duffer push your buttons. No one is that foolish to believe it is better to have a handful of the ruling class lord over the rest. That went out with middle ages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Your first mistake is using lay dictionaries to define words. Dictionaries are irrelevant now. Context is everything. Although we can be said to have "established" the common law in that we have developed precedent, we cannot be said to have invented common law any more than we can be said to have created "honesty" or "equity" or "fairness." Another problem with your "definitions" (let's just call them "unsubstantiated opinions") is that in England you don't have juries, so a judge will be setting the precedent. However, here in the U.S., we are still so immature and foolish that we leave important decisions to uneducated biased people. Now, even these decisions end up being made by judges in the end, but only after appeal upon appeal. Our legal system will remain inferior until there is a designated group, or class, that becomes the sole arbitors of all things legal. Lawyer, judge and jury all in one, without any influence from the laity.


Dictionaries are irrelevant? Must be something concocted by this new generation........this generation is devoid of anything that conveys a "standard" now, I guess. At any rate, any legal system that functions outside of God's standards, (especially when it directly opposes them), is "inferior".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



LuAnne, Don't let the little duffer push your buttons. No one is that foolish to believe it is better to have a handful of the ruling class lord over the rest. That went out with middle ages.


Oh, I know - I'm not angry, just kinda surprised at him. I wonder, though, if it's really true that this type of attitude went out with the middle ages...look at what's going on in DC!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



LuAnne, Don't let the little duffer push your buttons. No one is that foolish to believe it is better to have a handful of the ruling class lord over the rest. That went out with middle ages.


Are you sure about it going out with the middle ages? Because when I look at the decisions our country, no, our gov't, is making.........it sure makes me wonder! Also, if you look at the whole history of mankind.........our gov't today is the exception, not the rule......the other "exceptions".....like Rome ended, well, you know how THAT ended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



pt, that is absolutely one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard, and I really am surprised that it's coming from you!

The system we have now works when it is done right: our forefathers set up the system of trial by a jury of peers - did it ever occur to you that possibly they did that BECAUSE they didn't want judges making law? Hmmmm - could that even be why they created the separation of powers on the federal level?

Our legal system had become inferior because judges have adopted the idea that they can legislate from the bench. And because too many people on the jury don't understand that they can actually follow the constitution while they are in the jury.

It's a real shame, pt, that our forefathers were so off the mark to create an inferior justice system. Not.


I am truely sorry to disappoint you Happy, but I believe you'll see things my way if you take a few things into consideration. By allowing the citizenry to serve on our juries, we allow their bias an prejudices to creep in. Such a system allowed the unabridged mistreatment of blacks for over century after the civil war. It also allows for emotion, rather than intellect, to decide the out come of cases. Further, it takes a lifetime of studying the law to truly understand it in an applicable sense, but we let people with 8th grade educations, and only enough familiarity with the law as a three day trial can afford, make critical decisions regarding complex legal issues. There is a reason why England did away with their jury system. And we are already heading in that direction. Many contracts today require any disputes regarding the contract to be settled by an arbitor. No appellate court (including the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court) has a jury anymore. In fact, not every state trial court enpanels a jury. We are even moving closer to a legal class system, with all federal judges now being appointed for life so as to remove the threat of political influence.

Would you want someone who hasn't been to medical school diagnosing your health problems? Or how about a someone investing your retirement that doesn't have an MBA or doesn't have a securities license? The law is the same way. It is too improtant, the consequences too great, to leave in the hands of the masses.

And it's not arrogance. It's a reasonable thought based on entirely reasonable analysis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

believe me, I wouldn't let a doctor take complete control of my healthcare. I am part of the decision too.

and beside, If England had complete control of every decisions they make and ignore what the uneducated people think, there would be riot. it had happened before (I think in France) and it will happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



I am truely sorry to disappoint you Happy, but I believe you'll see things my way if you take a few things into consideration. By allowing the citizenry to serve on our juries, we allow their bias an prejudices to creep in. Such a system allowed the unabridged mistreatment of blacks for over century after the civil war. It also allows for emotion, rather than intellect, to decide the out come of cases. Further, it takes a lifetime of studying the law to truly understand it in an applicable sense, but we let people with 8th grade educations, and only enough familiarity with the law as a three day trial can afford, make critical decisions regarding complex legal issues. There is a reason why England did away with their jury system. And we are already heading in that direction. Many contracts today require any disputes regarding the contract to be settled by an arbitor. No appellate court (including the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court) has a jury anymore. In fact, not every state trial court enpanels a jury. We are even moving closer to a legal class system, with all federal judges now being appointed for life so as to remove the threat of political influence.

Would you want someone who hasn't been to medical school diagnosing your health problems? Or how about a someone investing your retirement that doesn't have an MBA or doesn't have a securities license? The law is the same way. It is too improtant, the consequences too great, to leave in the hands of the masses.

And it's not arrogance. It's a reasonable thought based on entirely reasonable analysis.


Well, I understand your reasoning but disagree wholeheartedly! Education does not an intellect make. I've know lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. who are very educated but have absolutley no common sense.

Adhering to the law and making a dispassionate decision is not only in the realm of the "educated."

Sorry, but I do not and will not agree with you.

I know that appellate courts don't have juries. I may be wrong, but I don't believe they ever did. But under the constitution citizens of this country are guaranteed a trial by a jury of their peers. That means people who are their equals - in age, possibly in education, etc.

As to someone operating on me without education - that isn't even a remotely good comparison! Jurors aren't professionals. They are peers, taken from a pool. Different animal altogether.

The system would change if the courts would adhere to the constitution...and if the people who made up the jury knew what they could do under the constitution. THAT is the education they need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...