Fundamentalist Religion vs Science: A view from The Simpsons.

Fundamentalist Religion: A Simpsons view

The Simpsons: “Religion must stay five hundred yards from science at all times.”

It should be noted that the focus is on Religious Fundamentalists. Not all who subscribe to religion are conservatives. And not all conservatives are fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are defined as people who seek to impose their brand of restrictive interpretation of religion on the entire society. This should be distinguished from conservatives who personally subscribe to a particular view point but have no desire of imposing it on others.

Religion v Education:
Superintendent Chalmers: “Thank the Lord”? That sounded like a prayer. A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls, just like facts don’t have a place within an organized religion.
One school board in rural Pennsylvania mandates the teaching of creationism.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/

Religious Group placing of stickers in textbook calling evolution “a theory, not a fact.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/12/evolution.embarrassment.ap/index.html

If they can get to place a sticker calling evolution “a theory, not a fact.” Then can we at least get to place a sticker calling:
1) Intelligent Design is “a story, not a theory.” I like this the best. Perhaps if you can design (get it?) a ‘sticker’ or something that appears whenever someone types in Intelligent Design on to this website or do that “?” and underline thing with a little textbox that appears.
2) Intelligent Design is “silly, not a theory.”
3) Intelligent Design is “ignorance, not intelligence.”
4) Intelligent Design is “neither intelligent, nor educational.” Sorry no Rhyme for this one.
5) Intelligent Design is “a story, not even a theory and definitely not a fact” If you prefer a long version without rhyme. One could sell some T-shirts with these slogans. And if one wants to capture both markets should sell both the evolution version and the intelligent design version. And should sell one where the front has the evolution warning and the back the intelligent design warning so the wearer can switch according to whom he is talking to.

Whether one calls it intelligent design or creationism the end result is still the same, the imposing of religion in school. The first question is why do they call it intelligent design. Is it to mask the distinctive lack of intelligence in the design of the concept?

The main thrust of this ‘intelligent design’ argument is that life is so complex it cannot just appear by itself and that there must be some guiding force. But then the question is, if life which is so complicated needs a guiding force (God), who created that guiding force?

Who created God?

If the answer is God is always there, then if one can accept that God which is presumably more complicated than mortal life can always be there and God was not created by some guiding force, then what is so difficult about accepting that life arises without such guiding force.

‘Perfection’ by Definition
Reverand Lovejoy: “Science has faltered once again in the face of overwhelming religious evidence.”

A failure to provide full explanation for everything is an invitation for improvement of the explanation. It is not however an invitation for one to introduce a whole range of explanations that are factually less logical and only works if one redefines the situation. For example, someone is told to paint a Green room Red. If the painter were to go to the house owner and tell them I define Green to be the same as Red, therefore the room is now painted Red, so pay me. You would just fire the painter.

‘Intelligent Design’ similarly does not provide for a better factual explanation it merely redefines the situation without actually explaining anything.

Religion v “Important Things”/Progress
Ned Flanders: Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don’t want to know. Important things.
US pushes global ban on stem cell cloning
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/12/science.cloning.un.reut/index.html

Religion is sometimes describes as a search for the ultimate truth. What then happens when the facts start becoming problematic for one’s definition of religion?

If we turn back several hundred years ago to the Dark Ages where the Arab-Muslim world was the beacon of science and Europe-Christian world was well as described in the Dark Ages. When people start deciding that a holy book written a long time ago contains instructions for every single aspect of life, and progress in society starts to slow to a crawl or even turn backyards, problem arises. Look at China several hundred years ago after it kicked out the Mongols, it started turning inwards and while not rejecting science merely turn its back to it and treat it more as an interesting hobby of a person. focusing instead on rules and culture by looking to the past to determine how society should behave.

Now, just like any conventions, any ban is only operative if the country actually signs on and ratifies the treaty. And since the US itself have not banned stem cell research, one is wondering what is the true purpose of this global ban. On a simple level, this is merely Bush playing to his evangelical supporters. Even if the convention is created the chances of US actually ratifying it would be quite low but Bush would have served his supporters. On a deeper level, one could see this as an attempt to ensure that US would not be overthrown in the bio-science research fields. One less foreign nation doing any research one less competitor. But that it seems is not real likely since nations that support the research will simply not sign on to the treaty.

Religion v Society
Reverend Lovejoy: This so-called new religion is nothing but a pack of weird rituals and chants, designed to take away the money of fools. Now let’s say the Lord’s Prayer 40 times, but first, let’s pass the collection plate
‘Miracle baby’ a victim
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4006945.stm

If religion is about the good one does then what happens when someone interprets the religion to support something bad such as slavery, discrimination, etc. So is religion used to justify prejudices that cannot stand along or did religion actually call for adopting such a position. Just as one can find a person using the bible to attack homosexuality another person can use the same bible to protect homosexuality.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/sallyann.asp
Also an interesting thing which I just discovered as a result of Target preventing the Salvation Army from soliciting on its property. Apparently the Salvation Army adopts an anti-gay position and in 2001 tried to exempt itself from laws barring discrimination. So if you are about to donate to the Salvation Army, and you believe in non-discrimination, I suggest you donate the money to another organisation or send the money to a local shelter directly.

Religious Fundamentalism
Reverand Lovejoy: Ned, have you considered any of the other major religions? They’re all pretty much the same.
Protest over Alfred Kinsey movie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4002317.stm

One that that I notice of conservative relgious fundamentalists across the world. It seems that once they remove specific religious references, their position is quite similar.

For example let us look at the following statements:

[Insert Name of Religion Here] Fundamentalist claims that man and woman serve different functions in society, with man working and woman staying at home.
[Insert Name of Religion Here] Fundamentalist claims that society is morally decadent and decaying.
[Insert Name of Religion Here] Fundamentalist claims that only man can lead the religion.
[Insert Name of Religion Here] Fundamentalist claims that woman is the reason for downfall of society.
[Insert Name of Religion Here] Fundamentalist warns of the corrupting danger of sexuality.

We must guard against the view that religion offers an all encompassing solution and if one actually looks to religion it will be a panacea for everything then perhaps one would be blinded by reality. One would seek to bend studies and facts to suit one’s particular viewpoint rather than looking at unbiased studies and facts to lead one to the viewpoint.

26 thoughts on “Fundamentalist Religion vs Science: A view from The Simpsons.

  1. Wonderful!  That’s great stuff, Pop.  I do love the Simpsons – far-and-away the most ‘family values’ oriented show on television.

    Les, your policy of presenting selected guest submissions is hereby completely vindicated.

  2. What then happens when the facts start becoming problematic for one’s definition of religion?

    Don’t look through the telescope, call for a review of the studies, appoint someone else, withold funding, quote out of context, . . .  The list is very long.

    Last night during the first segment of Now, Bill Moyers played some cuts from recent interviews with Robertson, Fallewll, Dobson and DeLay. I fear, very much, that they intend to drive us here.

  3. The French thinker Blaise Pascal wrote, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions.

  4. Sorry for the previous ‘Eggman’ post it was meant for Neodromos N.H. Couple post. I should never do this after doing that. Maybe Les can move it.

    Although it is still sort of on topic.

  5. A brilliant entry Pop Tarts, I’ve always enjoyed reverand Lovejoys cynical attitude towards his own religion.

  6. Reverend Lovejoy’s cynical attitude is the result of Ned Flanders. I distinctly remember an episode in which Lovejoy leaves his ministry because of it. He recalls how his faith in the church and god had never been stronger before he came to Springfield, but slowly waned with Ned’s constant need for relgious guidance on absolutely everything. smile

    On a completely different note, however, I’ve personally subscribed to the theory that religion is the product of a primal need for purpose and is the result of a fear of death. The argument stands, the human mind is truly incapable of comprehending death because it has never endured a period without consciousness. Personal experience of few who tried and few who remained atheists. Personally, the aspect of death terrifies me, but rather than run to religion for comfort, I try and face it. As for a need for purpose, men justify their actions and the quality of their lives often times by believing they are destined for something. Without any afterlife or existence beyond death, life becomes pointless. Fundamentalists are those that cling to religion out of fear and when attacked in principle see any attack as an attack on themselves, not just their religious beliefs. Thus, violence between fundamentalist groups is inevitable.

  7. To me the definition of fundamentalism boils down to this: when given a choice between love or compassion and adherence to doctrine, uniformity is more important than love.

  8. In answer to Eggman’s post of 11/13 @ 12:58PM (posted here in error?): The strongest human motivation is fantasy. That, together with the herd instinct for survival or survival of the fitest and you can find the reasons for so many wierd things done in the name of “religion”. (Re: Gen 22:1-19) The next step is to understand that anytime you make anything more sacred than a human being, you devalue human life and can use that to manipulate others. Of course, it requires that others agree to be manupilated to some extent. There are some philosophies out there that have the goal to elevate human beings to their highest potential, but once the philosophy becomes an organization, politics rears its ugly head. What a conundrum! Keep looking. grin

  9. PopTarts- I’m beginning to suspect that Matt Groening isn’t even a Christian…

    Eggman- Amen.  We need more of this kind of belief.  Religion, as you say, can bring out the best in us or the worst in us.  It can give life or kill.

    Now I’m going to be presumptious, since I’m an atheist, and my idea of “truth” is perhaps different from that of a believer. I agree that the ideal of selfless love, embodied in most religions, many believers, and even some atheists, is the best and most worthy ideal we can pursue, and something the world desparately needs.

    That doesn’t mean to me, however, that love is the “truest” part of religion. Religions are, like any cultural belief, evolved systems, and successful ones are successful not only, or necessarily, because of their truth, but because they compete well against the competition.  Just as organisms evolve in the biosphere, memes (some call big systems such as religions “memeplexes”) evolve in the ideosphere.  The utility to a religion of saying “kill the heathens” is pretty obvious.

    Luckily, many people see the long-term problems with this attitude, but unfortunately not everyone does, and some who don’t have guns and bombs.

    This memetic problem with religion is parallel to, and indeed to some extent an outgrowth of, the genetic problem of tribal identity- mistrusting the stranger.  These systems helped us to form societies and get us this far, but are increasingly dangerous to us all in today’s global- and well armed- village.

  10. Interesting discussion… I’d like to throw out a thought on PopTarts initial post. The beginning of the post is definitely designed to throw the “Intelligent Design” theory under the bus…but at the same time, shows weakness in the argument for unguided-Darwinian-evolution.

    Quote from PopTarts

    “The main thrust of this ‘intelligent design’ argument is that life is so complex it cannot just appear by itself and that there must be some guiding force. But then the question is, if life which is so complicated needs a guiding force (God), who created that guiding force?

    Who created God?

    If the answer is God is always there, then if one can accept that God which is presumably more complicated than mortal life can always be there and God was not created by some guiding force, then what is so difficult about accepting that life arises without such guiding force.”

    Therein lies the weakness. In essence, you’re saying, “I have no idea how this whole thing began, but if you can’t tell me where God came from, then I won’t tell you where evolution began either.” By making this comparison, you’ve just reduced the entire scientific theory to a faith-based system.

    So, in essence, you do have faith – it’s just not in a religion, or a god, it’s in…??? Nothingness? That somehow at some point life spontaneously came from

    . Regardless of what theory you subscribe to (the most popular current theory seems to be random energy becoming mass due to e=mc2…), it’s still a theory. IMO, it seems to take less faith to believe in intelligent design than complete randomness forming everything we see today…

    I’ll wrap it up with this…you said, “if one can accept that God which is presumably more complicated than mortal life can always be there and God was not created by some guiding force, then what is so difficult about accepting that life arises without such guiding force.

  11. Pop Tarts what a great post, I’m the guy who misquoted Lord Acton, I was a Catholic, but being educated in the Catholic school system I was taught to think for myself and follow the teaching of Christ. And as my reasoning ability grew my faith in Religion as a proper noun diminished and instead I became convinced that organised religion was based on the premise of fear of God, not that God loved us and was willing to die for us. I watch the televangilist on TV listen (sometimes) to the radio!
    And have reached the conclusion that whoever they are reaching out for must have some kind of damaged intellectual capacities to follow their inaine logic. In another blog a fine well brought up woman defends her vapid demonising of progressives by stating that her beliefs are all that she has so don’t destroy them thank you very much. With logic like that how do you rebut?
    I was reading some of the Chick cartoons today by way of The Dark Window and did not find them a bit amusing. That these kind of things are allowed to be handed out to kids and young adults is frightening. Faith without intellect, is like intellegence without humanity, empty of all meaning.
    PAX

  12. I’m getting really sick and tired of the “it’s just a theory” mantra spouted by creationists, fundamentalists and ID proponents. Why is it so difficult to comprehend the scientific definition of a theory? Do these people never fly in an aeroplane because aerodynamics is “just a theory”? Do they think God makes the bathwater spill because displacement is “just a theory”?

    I’ve seen the correct definition of a scientify theory posted here several times by Les and by others, and yet these people still don’t get it. I despair.

  13. In response to Jeremy, your post can be rebutted and I have already provided the rebuttal for it briefly, in the following paragraph (Perfection by Definition) from the one you quoted. But let me expand.

    Let us first define evolution. Sometimes when the word evolution is used people mean different things.
    1) Evolution as changes over time: This is not disputed and is if I am not wrong part of the intelligent design.
    2) Evolution as part of common ancestor: This is part of evolution but is not the entire theory and to a large extent there is sufficient evidence for this.
    3) Evolution relating to ‘genesis’: This relates to how life begins and generally this is not really considered as part of the theory of evolution but is sometimes used in conjunction with it.

    From your post it would seem that your focus relates to genesis rather than evolution itself. I am not too sure how much you believe in evolution minus the genesis portion but a simple search of the web or this site can provide you with answer if you do not subscribe to evolution. I would instead focus on some logical inconsistencies in your argument.

    There are three points I want to make. 1) Choice of faith 2) Evolution-Genesis Misconception 3) Certainty.

    1) Choice of Faith
    According to my reading of your post you believe that evolution-genesis is a faith based system. Now attacking evolution-genesis as a faith based system is logically problematic for a religious person because if having faith in a system means one should discount it, then why are you not discounting religion, which is a faith based system. If you wish to reject evolution-genesis as faith based, then you too will have to reject religion since it too is faith based.

    2) Evolution Genesis Misconception
    Now answer the point as to why evolution-genesis is not a faith based system. The simple reason is that there is STRONGER and MORE PROBABLE evidence for evolution-genesis than for creationism. When you refer to evolution-genesis as a theory, you are right but you should know that a theory is not any simple attempt at explanation. A theory is a reliable and logical explanation of a series of facts and observation. Creationism on the other hand is not even a theory, it may be an attempt at ‘explanation’ BUT it is not based on facts. It seemingly provides the answer only by redefining the issue (painter example). One example is your explanation of God being complex and how one cannot understand it. Basically what you are doing is redefining the situation in an attempt to provide an answer.

    A side note on the ‘randomness’ misconception. Actually, the moment a person talks about “random” evolution it shows that there is a lack of understanding at a certain level. Evolution is NOT about random and in fact is about selection based on one’s environment. In short molecules arrange themsleves according to their properties and they react to their environment and surroundings. Basically, you can search this site or the web or someone could provide a greater explanation but I will limit myself to the logics of your arguments.

    Now the lack of absolute and complete proof does not mean that adopting that system is based on faith. It means that based on the available evidence and proof one concludes that evolution provides the best explanation at this moment. An analogy: Two persons apply for a job and that there are 10 tests that they must take. Person X passes 8 and Person Y fails all the tests. Hiring Person X is the best solution based on available data rather than based on faith. But what if Person Z comes in and passes all 10 tests, then one would reject Person X and hire Person Z. Similarly, the argument goes for evolution and creationism. Evolution is like Person X, passing many tests but not all, Creationism is like Person Y, passing no tests.

    Ah, so evolution might turn out to be false. Of course, and that is a fundamental principle of science, the quest for knowledge. BUT BUT BUT despite evolution not being 100% proven, it still offers a better solution to creationism. Evolution makes no claim that it is perfect at this moment while creationism do make such a claim and that leads us to the next part.

    3) Certainty
    The mere fact that something is not absolute (good vs evil / with us or against us) or 100% certain is not a failure but rather it shows an ability to adapt, to improve and to understand. And that is one criticism of some people who adopt a literal interpretation of religion and their holy books. They look into the past and believe it provides all answers for the future.

    Do not fear uncertainty, Do not fear being faced with questions where one do not know the answer, instead we should embrace for innovation and the ability to inquire is what makes human unique and the cornerstone to progress in society.

    A final point just to ponder about. If you have difficulty comprehending God, lack evidence for God and rely on faith instead, then could not your lack of comprehension result in a misinterpretation of the word of God? How do you know that God (assuming exists) wants you to worship him? Perhaps he want you to use your free will and lead a life where you discover good by yourself, rather than accepting other human’s interpretation of God.

    —-
    Larkinsjapn
    Religion need not be an opiate for the dumb. In fact I know a number of smart deeply religious people. I know of someone who went to Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard who is very religious. And she is a very strong proponent of human rights and civil liberties. That is why in my initial post I talked about how given the diverse interpretation of religion from champion of freedom to enslaver of mankind, I wonder whether is religion ultimately a tool that aids a person rather than actually providing guidance in itself.

    Of course that blog from the girl raise a real interesting concept of religion. That is religion was created to give people hope. Living a crummy life will seem more fulfilling and more livable if one belief that this life is merely a transit to a better place and that light is at the end of the tunnel. Religion could be the first tool used by shamens (ancestor of the psychiatrist) to prevent the tribe from falling into mental depression.

  14. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/

    In case Les did not see my submission in time, you should try to catch the CNN Presents: The Fight Over Faith at 8pmET, 14 Nov (additional timing check out the link)

    I have taken a peak at it and it is quite interesting to say the least. It presents the conservative evangelical and the liberal evangelical. And the most “interesting” part is where a little girl (8 year old?) say she is a born again Christian and was saved at aged 3.

  15. Where’s Spocko when you need him?  Maybe a picture will help since written descriptions of scientific theory have all but failed.
    img1.gif
    There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be falsifiable. This means that there must be some experiment that could prove the theory untrue.

    The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced; one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. [Jose Wudka 1998]

    BTW: Great post PT.

  16. Jeremy- Pop Tart and Deadscot have provided effective rebuttals to your position, but if you want another, here goes:

    If it’s an explanation for the origin of life we’re seeking, what we have to explain is how order can arise from disorder. OK so far?  Now, it’s a demonstrable fact, and intuitively obvious, that the designer of a system (I mean a top-down designer, like an engineer or, say, a god) must be more complex than the system he, she, or it designs.  Agreed?  If this is true, positing a God only postpones the problem of explaining order- it’s no explanation at all.  Pop Tarts said as much, and you haven’t addressed it.

    And your claim that evolution theory not being able to explain the beginning of life is tantamount to faith in the theory is just absurd.  But this highlights a difference between science and dogma, gone over many times in this forum: being able to admit not knowing something, or having made a mistake, is perhaps the greatest strength of science not a weakness.  Dogma cannot afford to admit to mistakes, lest faith waver.

    Evolution provides the only non-question-begging explanation of order, bottom-up, by the accumulation of change that works, a little at a time, through random mutation and natural selection.  Creation “science” and its kin “intelligent design” are rather simple belief systems, fully inadequate to explain the complex world.  To even partially understand current evolution theory, a huge body of knowledge, requires hard work, but once undertaken, makes any other view of creation like a fairy tale.  Try it.

  17. Well now that I have involved myself in this thread with a comment meant for another post I have to say I have enjoyed reading all of this.

    And, ummm yeah Jeremy, E=mc2 a theory? … Ask the survivors of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki about that one. Sorry for the sarcasm but I see this grasping at straws way too often and get the same teeth grinding response to it as I do to big pickup truck commercials.

    Unquestioning (blind) belief naturally requires intolerance of things deemed as threatening to the most powerful organized religions that want to retain their power in the form of control over people which includes relieving their aptly named flock of some spare change and part of their brains. I always think about the comedian who asked; “What happened to all those poor condemned catholic people who ate meat on Friday, now that the pope says it is okay to eat meat on Friday now?

  18. Eggman, that rant was absolutely first class.  I’m looking forward to your next one.

    I especially liked your expanded version of the golden rule:

    … if we want to be free to have as fulfilling an experience in this life we need to let others be free to have own their fulfilling life experience. This means no killing, harming, stealing, or otherwise fucking with another human being or his pursuit of fulfillment with the sole purpose of improving your life experience.

    If I had that carved in granite and displayed it in a courthouse, do you suppose it would get me in trouble?

  19. Also an interesting thing which I just discovered as a result of Target preventing the Salvation Army from soliciting on its property. Apparently the Salvation Army adopts an anti-gay position and in 2001 tried to exempt itself from laws barring discrimination. So if you are about to donate to the Salvation Army, and you believe in non-discrimination, I suggest you donate the money to another organisation or send the money to a local shelter directly.

    Don’t forget to boycott them simply because they only give help accompanied by proselytization. They have wreacked havoc upon the indigenous societies of other countries.  Indonesia, for example.  Assholes.

    [Insert Name of Religion Here] Fundamentalist claims that woman is the reason for downfall of society.

    I read a paper in Anth theory about how violence and cultural discrimination against women is almost always accompanied by some kind of duress, be it economical, war, lack of resources, whatever.  So this goes along with other comments that fundamentalism is an opportunistic disease.  It preys on societal turmoil, like we have in America right now and like that present in Iraq and other countries in that area.

    Also, I read that women can have separate roles from men but still be equally powerful in the society.  It’s when the separate roles are accompanied by violence and true [expected] subservience (as opposed to things that appear to be subservience from the outsider’s POV) that women are oppressed.  So our (American) society is actually still pretty backwards in those terms.  Rape and spousal abuse happen far too often for us to declare that women are completely free.

    Ok, I think today will be another multi-post day for me since I have 3 classes to teach and need to catch up on all these interesting comments!  Sorry in advance!

  20. Thank you decrepitoldfool and Brock, I’m not the most articulate person or one of the better blog writers so I appreciate first, the recognition and then, the appreciation/understanding of what I was attempting to say.

    So now that I am ego pumped to the level to fulfill my ultimate goal I now proclaim the religion of human beings (Eggmania) which was revealed to me by a beanstalk (or “The Beanstalk

  21. Eggman is my sheperd, I shall not want. Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me – oh, wait, that would be Brock, or are you bi? LOL

  22. NEWS FLASH:……

    “6 months after the rules of Eggman were enacted, the court will hear several cases relating to the application of Rule 6, 7,and 8.”

    “You shall not murder.”
    It is stated explicitly that killing in situation of defence of self and family is not considered as murder but questions remain.

    Questions relating to the definition of self defence, whether should the court adopt a subjective test whereby a person believes his life is threatened or an objective test whereby a reasonable person would act in such a manner. Issues relating to provocation, proportionality of response are also raised. Women rights group would fear that too strict an emphasis on immediate provocation may result in battered women being convicted of murder if their actions did not occur immediately following the battering.

    Meanwhile, victims right and anti-death penalty groups clash on whether the death penalty is considered murder.

    The nation’s attorney general also seek clarification on the use of military force in aid of a nation that was invaded and whether such actions is justified since their killing was not exactly for defense of self and family but in aid of an ally.

    Lawyers also are attempting to seek a definition of family and self. Issues of should one adopt a literal interpretation or a more broad interpretation whereby family includes friends and for nations ally and friendly nations. The state also argues that “self” should be defined to also include the society’s interests thus allowing death penalty for people trying to overthrow the government or people who had murdered others. Also issues of whether a stranger who went up to help a person being attacked can avail themselves to the self-defense.

    It has been argued that the comment of “pro-life anti abortion and anti-death penalty … in support of murder of innocent brown skinned non-believing” statement is confusing and does not actually state that death penalty is not allowed. Rather the statement reflects murdering of barbarians. Questions arise as to whether if a zealot who is pro-choice and pro-death penalty may murder innocent brown skinned non-believers.

    The court would also seek further clarification on killing that was not exactly intentional. From reckless actions (drunk driving) to negligent actions (badly perform operation) resulting in death the issue is whether should those actions be considered as murder. Also the relevance of the mental element or intention in murder is to be addressed. Issues relating to “egg shell” type situation also pose a problem, specifically whereby the action in question would not have killed a normal person but because of some special characteristics unknown to the accused, the actions caused the death. One Jehovah’s Witness organisation also seek a statement from the court in providing that the fact that a person refused treatment from a wound that would have easily prevented the death should not be a defense to the person who caused the wound.

    A final point relating to rule 6 that clarification is sought is the definition of the color brown.

    “You shall absolutely observe the “honesty is the best policy

  23. …for the Eggman stateth:

    “Ahmniscient, and ahmnipotent too

    Ahmniscient and ahmnipotent too

    Ah wooden mess around wid me if Ah was you”

  24. Sorry for my out of the line post…was responding to the initial post before I had a chance to read everything.  Holy Cow!  That was hilarious!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.