Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So we should turn our courts into a Sunday school?
How would you feel about a choice between jail or a doing a workbook on the attributes of the Koran?
The judge does not have to give a choice. It was a sentence which means the person was found guilty, and he could simply say go to jail. If I were in that position, as a non-Muslim, I would appreciate the choice and gladly do the workbook.
You realize that throughout history people were given "choices?" They went something like this: Convert to our religion or be punished!
You're leaving out a key point. These people were not picked up and forced to convert to a religion. They were found guilty in court for violating the law. They were sentenced to community service which is a typical sentence. They were also given a choice to do something different if they preferred.
Is this judge part of Congress? Did he endorse any particular religion by it? I would actually side w/you that if the only option was to read the book, yes--that's wrong. if he gave a choice of it, or an alternative service I don't see an issue.
Calvinist, do you not recall any of the discussions on constitutional law you have participated in here?
Thanks to the 14th amendment, this judge AND ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY has to comply with the First Amendment AND ANY CASES INTERPRETING IT.
This is not an opinion. This is a fact.
You don't see the issue because you don't believe in or understand the Establishment clause.
The judge does not have to give a choice. It was a sentence which means the person was found guilty, and he could simply say go to jail. If I were in that position, as a non-Muslim, I would appreciate the choice and gladly do the workbook.
One of the choices given was unconstitutional and invalid. That he made it a "choice" isn't really relevant.
Calvinist, do you not recall any of the discussions on constitutional law you have participated in here?
Thanks to the 14th amendment, this judge AND ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY has to comply with the First Amendment AND ANY CASES INTERPRETING IT.
This is not an opinion. This is a fact.
You don't see the issue because you don't believe in or understand the Establishment clause.
Actually, that's a flawed reading of the 14th Ammendment.
Having said that, as I mentioned above but you've apparently ignored...if there was not a choice of an alternative sentence given, I do agree it was wrong.
One of the choices given was unconstitutional and invalid. That he made it a "choice" isn't really relevant.
It's unconsitituational if it makes law establishing religion. Most laws do not come with the caveat of you can choose to obey or not to obey, which this decision did by allowing an alternative that had nothing to do with religion and was a more typical sentence.
Actually, that's a flawed reading of the 14th Ammendment.
Having said that, as I mentioned above but you've apparently ignored...if there was not a choice of an alternative sentence given, I do agree it was wrong.
Perhaps this will help you to understand.
Quote:
But when judges discovered that deliberating jurors in a Colorado murder trial had consulted a copy of the Holy Scriptures before delivering their verdict, the defendant's death sentence was overturned as biased and unreliable.
Although prosecutors asked the US Supreme Court to take up the case, it refused - without comment - on Monday to second-guess the Colorado judges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.