Religion is a personal affair, not a national one. If individual citizens and leaders want to use religion in their decision making processes, so be it. That's what the First Amendment is all about.
However, it is against the interests of liberty to mandate religion in official business. I'm not afraid of the Ten Commandments because I believe in most of them (the last six anyway), but if I walked into a court room in front of a judge pointing to the Ten Commandments, I'd have a serious problem. While they might've been considered while making our criminal and civil law, they are not the law in itself. It is for this reason that they really do not have a place in public offices.
Do you honestly think that a judge, who has a copy of the ten commandments framed on his wall is actually going to point to them and cite them in making a decision? That would NEVER happen. Judges are bound to make rulings based on the laws in effect in the jurisdiction in which they serve. Citing a commandment as the basis for a decision is a direct path to being overruled by the Court of Appeals. Judges, generally speaking, don't like being overruled.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: Separation of Church and State
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Ifferd
Quote:
ORIGINAL: burniegoeasily
I guess the recent rulingbanning theNativity while allowing the Star and Crescent as well as a Jewish Menorah, has got me a little bent. It just seems like its perfectly fine to bash Christians, but we do not want to upset anyone else.
I cant think of the one that is about to be heard by the suprem
What ruling are you referring to burnie? Fill me in and I'll spew with you.
I cant think of where the last one is from, but the supreme court is about to hear a case where the nativity scene has been removed from public grounds while letting the crescent and star along with the mahnora to stay. The latest is in Chicago. Chicago has banned advertising the movie, "The Nativity" from its Christmas festival. Yet it allows other religious symbols to be displayed on public grounds. Also, other movies are allowed to advertise on public grounds.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Do you honestly think that a judge, who has a copy of the ten commandments framed on his wall is actually going to point to them and cite them in making a decision? That would NEVER happen. Judges are bound to make rulings based on the laws in effect in the jurisdiction in which they serve. Citing a commandment as the basis for a decision is a direct path to being overruled by the Court of Appeals. Judges, generally speaking, don't like being overruled.
Of course not...they'd make their decision without explaining the religious justification. Many judges are quite smart, and know when to hold their tongue even though their pens betray them. Roy Moore, for instance. He didn't hang up the Constitution behind the bench--he put up his Ten Commandments plaque. Some people are extremists, which is a fact of life.
Funny you should mention Chicago, I have been consistently disappointed with Chicago and Illinois in general as of late stemming from things like you posted, and other bits of ultra-liberal stuff I've heard about the city and the state.
Any more, it seems like IL is as packed full of liberal nuts as CA is. Bunch of snot nosed, blue blooded damn-yankees.
GAWD I love NC.
Southerners ROCK!
Burnie, if you're from up north, please don't tell me - I like you right now.
The nutcases are primarily from Chicago. The rest of the state is relatively conservative. Lots of cool gun manufacturers in Illinois. Springfield Armory. Rock River Arms. Armalite. Les Baer.
Of course not...they'd make their decision without explaining the religious justification. Many judges are quite smart, and know when to hold their tongue even though their pens betray them. Roy Moore, for instance. He didn't hang up the Constitution behind the bench--he put up his Ten Commandments plaque. Some people are extremists, which is a fact of life.
I can't imagine many instances in which "religious justification" would be a deciding factor. Likewise, the vast majority of cases don't involve issues of constitutional law. So, why the big deal if a judge frames a copy of the ten commandments rather than the constitution. The ten commandments are not binding precedent in any of the 50 state courts, or in the federal courts.
Most cases in civil courts involve traffic accidents, breaches of contract, fraud, etc. And case law available for interpretation is vast and complexin respect of each type of case. To the extent that any Commandment touches remotely on an issue, it would only be in a very basic and rudimentary sense, and therewould be 100 cases that a judge couldcite on the issue which deal with it in detail.The only issue I can really imagine could be impacted by a judge's religious beliefs is the abortion issue.There aren't a lot of those cases pending, and in order to overturn years of precedent, a judge would need more than to just say "I outlaw abortion because it's against Catholic doctrine." He would have to state a reasoned argumentbased on interpretation of existing cases and laws.
RE: Separation of Church and State
