Replies

If the article is accurate about what was presented at the trial, then I don't like it -- looks far too weak for me, and had I been on a jury and all that I had to consider was the testimony of a few witnesses who didn't even witness anything, but instead claimed that the accused bragged about it after the fact, with no physical evidence whatsoever, I wouldn't turn a guilty verdict.

But,then,I wasn't a juror, so perhaps there was something more presented than the article would seem to indicate. All I know is that the OJ trial had better evidence and he was acquitted, so I'm not sure that the Biblical analogy works completely. Clearly different situations lead to different verdicts, based solely upon the jury in question.

In any case, I think that I owe you an apology for any incivility that I might have shown toward you. You have presented yourself as knowledgable, rational and willing to clearly explain your beliefs and your justifications without resorting to thoughtless fallacies and blanket insulting statements about those who do not happen to believe as you do. I should remember that in spite of the aggrivation that I get at reading people who blithely assert that all atheists are fools or "liberal air heads", I should avoid launching salvos of vitrol toward those who are clearly willing to engage in meaningful discussion.