Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-29-2011, 02:54 PM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,616,340 times
Reputation: 1275

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Do you just not get that this is a major and direct violation of the Establishment clause?

The judge had no secular choices here? Eh?
If the judge did not give an alternative choice, then yes--I agree. It was a violation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2011, 02:56 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,617,602 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
You realize that throughout history people were given "choices?" They went something like this: Convert to our religion or be punished!

That was King George. There was no choice.

There is a big difference in keeping Government out of GOD and keeping GOD out of Government.

The way your analyzing it, everyone in Government, must be an Atheist, or it is against the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 02:56 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,584,176 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 02:59 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,584,176 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 03:00 PM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,129,761 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 03:01 PM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,129,761 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 03:02 PM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,616,340 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 03:03 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,584,176 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Midwest
38,496 posts, read 25,811,747 times
Reputation: 10789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
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.
High court lets stand 'no Bible' ruling / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2011, 03:16 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,584,176 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
The two situations are not equivalent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:38 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top