having a devil of a time

[jainen]

You are missing my point. Ethics, as it relates to my religious beliefs, contradicts ethics, as it relates to my duty to my client.

If I am a defense attorney, my professional ethics requires me to help my client, even if I believe he is a murderer. If I am a [insert name of religion], I am bound by my moral ethics to turn in the dirty rotten pond scum.

You can't possible think that ethics is always universally consistent in every sense of the term.

Very well, since you insist on changing the subject let us start a new thread.

I know of no religion or ethical positions that deny someone accused under public laws from having a fair hearing according to those public laws. Certainly not the Old or New Testaments, whose sense of justice is derived from the Code of Hammurabi. Even in the strictest interpretations, mercy is always considered a higher virtue considering that none of us are without sin.

And I know of no public court (at least in our free land) where a defense attorney can conceal evidence any more than the prosecutor can, both being officers of the court. In fact, the Bush administration is trying to set up that kind of court, but they are having a devil of a time.

[Joe Btfsplk]

Defense attorney

A defense attorney may not conceal evidence, but he does not have to reveal it if the client confesses. If the client tells where he hid the murder weapon, would the lawyer be obligated to tell the court? I don't think so, but if the lawyer, himself,
hid the weapon so that the DA couldn't find it, that would be concealing evidence.

[veritas]

Wwhd?

What would Hammurabi do?

[jainen]

things haven't really changed all that much

>>What would Hammurabi do?<<

The big thing about Hammurabi was that he was the first to publish his laws. He inscribed them on a big slab of basalt and set it up in the middle of town. Because it was written in stone, there was no way to change it for anyone's special situation. And because it was public, you couldn't say you didn't know about it, so you weren't allowed to offer excuses or any kind of defense! (So to answer your question, Hammurabi didn't have the ethical dilemma of a defense attorney that we're talking about.)

In those days if you were suspected of, say, murder, you were surely guilty. False accusations just didn't happen, because if someone charged you with murder but couldn't prove it, then HE was murdered! And if a judge convicted and punished you but it later turned out you were innocent, then the judge suffered whatever your punishment had been.

Actually, the greatest portion of Hammurabi's laws dealt with various forms of marital infidelity, thus once again proving that those old writings (including the Bible) are still relevant because things haven't really changed all that much.

[veritas]

I like that part about the judges.

[veritas]

Interesting that you would mention Hammurabi. My wife who home schools covered this topic just this week.

[MAMalody]

>>>Certainly not the Old or New Testaments, whose sense of justice is derived from the Code of Hammurabi.<<<

I find no Biblical justification for this statement. Will you please direct me to one?

[jainen]

centuries before Moses

>>no Biblical justification for this statement<<

Code of Hammurabi - "1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death."

Deuteronomy 5:20 -- "if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother."

Of course, we can't date these old texts exactly. They represent very similar and related cultures in a small geographical area so there was a lot of trading back and forth. But Hammurabi lived at least a couple of centuries before Moses.

[jainen]

proof of guilt

By the way, what I meant by "sense of justice" is not that a false witness is subject to the same penalty he was trying to impose on "his brother." It is that you get your day in court and are considered innocent until there is proof of guilt.

[MAMalody]

>>>Code of Hammurabi - "1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death."

Deuteronomy 5:20 -- "if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother."

Of course, we can't date these old texts exactly. They represent very similar and related cultures in a small geographical area so there was a lot of trading back and forth. But Hammurabi lived at least a couple of centuries before Moses.<<<

The two statements are not the same, even to the casual reader. I do agree that the Code of Hammurabi was 200+ years prior to Moses...and that Moses may have even been familiar with it when he wrote what God wanted him too..but to infer <<<the Old or New Testaments, whose sense of justice is derived from the Code of Hammurabi.<<< is really a stretch.

I guess we have left the tax field a bit (sorry) so I will refrain from continue posting in this manner.

[jainen]

Hamurabi's precedent

>>The two statements are not the same, even to the casual reader.<<

You don't think the two statements are extraordinarily similar? Maybe ONLY to a casual reader they are not.

The idea that a person accused of a crime is entitled to face his accuser and the evidence in a public hearing is not something intuitive. The ancient mideast was about the only place in the world where the government itself implemented such a right. You may have noticed that our own government is STILL trying to restrict it four thousand years later.

Hamurabi's code and the manner in which he published it was an astounding development. To say it didn't directly influence other leaders in the neighborhood at the time is absurd. When Moses recorded the same right with the same penalty for violating it, he was using all the resources that God had given him, including Hamurabi's precedent.

[Bees Knees]

Hamurabi's code and the manner in which he published it was an astounding development. To say it didn't directly influence other leaders in the neighborhood at the time is absurd. When Moses recorded the same right with the same penalty for violating it, he was using all the resources that God had given him, including Hamurabi's precedent.

Ancient Babylon (Hamurabi's home town) was where the first decedents of Noah began to build a tower in case God decided to flood the earth again. It is where many rebellious ideas got their start. The book of Revelations even uses the reference to Babylon when it describes a great harlot that will be destroyed when God judges the inhabitants of the earth.

It is ridiculous and offensive to many who regard the Bible as being inspired of God to claim the Bible is merely a copy of other ancient writings. The Bible says Moses was told directly by God what to right down in the law. If anyone copied anyone, it was Hammurabi who wrote down oral traditions that he had learned from his parent’s generation and grandparent’s generation. They were all direct decedents of Noah, who was familiar with laws and principals that were told to him directly by God, as the Bible calls Noah a man who walked with God.

If Moses had copied other writings of his day, then the Mosaic law would have been similar to all the other religious rituals of his day, which included child sacrifice and sexual prostitution in religious temples; none of which was found in the law given to the Hebrews.

[jainen]

all things were made through the Word

>>It is ridiculous and offensive to many who regard the Bible as being inspired of God<<

Why should someone strong in their faith be offended by an anonymous Internet post? If so, shouldn't I be offended at your suggestion that God DOESN'T use the historical process, since the Bible says all things were made through the Word?

[Bees Knees]

>>It is ridiculous and offensive to many who regard the Bible as being inspired of God<<

Why should someone strong in their faith be offended by an anonymous Internet post? If so, shouldn't I be offended at your suggestion that God DOESN'T use the historical process, since the Bible says all things were made through the Word?

The entire quote was: “It is ridiculous and offensive to many who regard the Bible as being inspired of God to claim the Bible is merely a copy of other ancient writings.”

Then, in the typical “can’t we all just get along” mentality, you are puzzled at why someone should be offended at such a thing.

Yes, you most certainly can, and maybe should be offended when someone disagrees with your core beliefs…IF... that truly is what you believe.

Religious ideology is behind the vast majority of conflicts that have occurred throughout the history of mankind on this earth. Millions have been slaughtered in the name of religion. Do you honestly believe that you can discuss religion on an Internet Message board and not “offend” the core beliefs of others? Religion is probably the most controversial subject there is to discuss…maybe even more controversial than politics.

This illustrates why it is foolish to think we should somehow try to reconcile professional ethics with moral ethics. The whole point of this exercise on ethics is to get people to understand that the ethics we must follow as tax professionals can, and often do, offend the moral ethics that are at the core of our set of beliefs.

No, we cannot just all get along. That is the first thing everyone needs to understand before you can understand your professional ethical responsibilities. You are not always going to agree with what someone else has determined should be your professional ethical duty. In fact, you may very well be offended by what has been determined to be your professional ethical duty.