"This is not a question of rights, but of duties. A juror's duty is to the law. The law of Man, not that of God."
Your argument from "duty" is a good one, to which I can relate. However, I don't think it is ever right to instruct juries to follow man's laws and ignore God's.
Jurors shouldn't be instructed to disregard divine law. Anyone whose views thereof are incompatible with the law of the state should be weeded out in jury selection.
In the instant case, the issue isn't whether people obey or even proclaim God's law, as they understand it; the issue is that they looked it up and shared their findings. That kind of independent inquiry is not a right of jurors in any jurisdiction I know of.
That has caused attrocities in war, and other examples you cited. I cannot imagine the founding fathers approving of such instructions being given to a jury.
I can't imagine that the Founders would accept that questions of secular law should be decided by the biblical interpretations of amateur theologians. If the law is profane, the place to change it is the ballot box, not the jury box.
I accept that in extreme cases, the jury must rule sideways to, or even contrary to, the written law; an unjust law cannot be justly applied. But accept that you're breaking the law. Stare it down, and accept consequences, Dr. King was arrested and jailed on that principle. He did not physically resist arrest, but rather used his arrest to challenge the American conscience and get the law changed.
If the secular law conflicts with the divine, the solution is to fix the former, not to ignore or discard it on an ad hoc basis. You may or may not win. No one said democracy would be easy.
In the case of wartime atrocities, a soldier is not only allowed but required to refuse unjust orders. The secular law is sufficient in itself, and obeying it doesn't require any metaphysical justification. If there's a problem with the UCMJ, fix it. Don't ignore it or pretend it doesn't apply.
Therefore, I don't think this should disqualify you for jury duty, that one holds scripture in higher regard that man made laws.
If you're called to serve on a jury, your job is to rule under the applicable "man-made" laws. If you canot do so, and will instead rest your decision on your own interpretation of the Bible, you are an unfit juror.
In fact, those that instruct such are NOT fit to sit on the bench.
Judges have to instruct juries on the law. That's why they sit in the tall chair. They don't write the law; we elect people to do that.
The Terri Schiavo case has so illustrated to many the problem with "Godless" courts.
I should have known that, no matter what the ostensible topic, this would come up. If there is a problem with the rulings in re Schiavo, the problem isn't that the judges were godless, but that they were lawless. If there's a conflict between the laws of Man and those of God, however you interpret the latter, the answer is in the legislature.
"If you're called to serve on a jury, your job is to rule under the applicable "man-made" laws. If you canot do so, and will instead rest your decision on your own interpretation of the Bible, you are an unfit juror."
Nothing eloquent to say in reply, other than I disagree. I believe that disregarding divine law has got us in the pickle we are in. I won't go to "war" over this with you, but I will use the legislative process to oppose your views and attempt change.
What limited experience I have had with the "law" as a private investigator is that it is ridiculous in the way it has been interpreted. So, many times I had read the original legislation and seen how the judicial process as incredible twisted the original intent.
OK - Now let me back off for a bit. In truth, right now I am upset about Schiavo and obviously my rhetoric is "off." I understand the reasoning behind a jury only using what they are presented in the court room, I just have problems with it - the Bible issue is just a "right now" manestfation. Forget about the Bible issue for a moment. At times when I have sat on a jury, it bugged me no end that I couldn't ask questions of witnesses, or that I did not get to hear about a defendent's past history unless he was put on the stand. If I am charged with making a decision that will brand a person for life (a felony conviction) or may deprive them of life. I want to hear it all, and know how the information was derived and received.
The court room procedures of today is too controled by the lawyers present. They go to great efforts to keep you from hearing everything, or to only hear want they want you to hear. I want to hear all the information available and weigh it myself.
Got to cut this off, my son is up and I need to get him and me to bed. Take care.