Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    The US is a Christian country so it's really tough **** IMO. I see no reason to change what has been for years and years just because the few Hindus or Buddhist or Islamists that find themselves in court might feel uncomfortable with the Ten Commandments hanging overhead.
    You see no point in upholding the constitution Howard?

    What makes the US a "Christian country" when it is specifically forbidden that the State act on that basis?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The Ten Commandments were the original laws for mankind therefore they are very relevant to a court room set-up.
    So we should be convicting people who work down the Local Target because they did so on Saturday and Sunday? We should punish those who covet their neighbours wife? Who do not "Honour their father and mother"? Who do not worship a christian God?

    Fact is:

    a) its unconstitutitional
    b) It serves no useful purpose to have them there
    c) It can harm the image of the court and the state as not taking sides, and as being impartial
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    So we should be convicting people who work down the Local Target because they did so on Saturday and Sunday? We should punish those who covet their neighbours wife? Who do not "Honour their father and mother"? Who do not worship a christian God?

    Fact is:

    a) its unconstitutitional
    b) It serves no useful purpose to have them there
    c) It can harm the image of the court and the state as not taking sides, and as being impartial
    a) Ammendment 1 of the US Constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

    I don't see how this is breached by having them there.

    b) Agreed. But frankly English barristers wear ridiculous wigs that don't serve much of a purpose either. Are we to rid ourselves of everything that serves no real purpose for the sake of modernity?

    c) The Ten Commandment does absolutely nothing to make the courts impartial. There's simply no case for saying so. If impartiality is what we want through a true separation of church and state then we'd need to worry about the Ten Commandments; how about going the whole hog and removing any judge or infact any state employee in the position of authority who considers himself a Christian. Plainly ridiculous.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    a) Ammendment 1 of the US Constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

    I don't see how this is breached by having them there.
    Depends on how you interpret the text. On a literal interpretation - perhaps. But many would say the constitution is not to be so taken.

    Would you have no problem, legally speaking, with say, Congress putting up a big Hindu alter, and having hourly prayers to Vishnu, all the while passing proclamations that the people of the US should embrace that religion?

    Make laws? Sure... but some would say it extends to positive acts of state institutions that enshrine or promote a certain religion.

    (Original post by Howard)
    b) Agreed. But frankly English barristers wear ridiculous wigs that don't serve much of a purpose either. Are we to rid ourselves of everything that serves no real purpose for the sake of modernity?
    No - but that wasnt really my point - I was simply pointing out that that side of the formula was close to be 0. If we are going to cause offense and greif, and blur the lines between the state and an established religion, it should damn well have a purpose ratehr than simple tradition.


    (Original post by Howard)
    c) The Ten Commandment does absolutely nothing to make the courts impartial. There's simply no case for saying so. If impartiality is what we want through a true separation of church and state then we'd need to worry about the Ten Commandments; how about going the whole hog and removing any judge or infact any state employee in the position of authority who considers himself a Christian. Plainly ridiculous.
    You mean make them partial? I dont follow.

    Obviously you do what you can. Removing people from position for their beliefs is impossible and would leave us with no one to do the job. Ideally and theoretically speaking - do I think that it would be good if judges could have no pre-conceived views on good and evil? yes... but thats not going to happen.

    What CAN happen, is that we ensure that the courts are seen to be as impartial as possible, and that we send the message that one's personal religious beliefs have no place in the courtroom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    According to BBC News:

    "The US Supreme Court has ruled against the display of the biblical Ten Commandments inside courtrooms.
    Judges had been asked to decide whether such displays were merely a tribute to American history or an unconstitutional break with the church-state separation.

    The hearing focused on a display inside a court in the state of Kentucky. A ruling on a display in Texas is due.

    The issue has sparked heated debate between Christian conservatives and secularist campaigners."

    - Err I mean what on earth?? I really am struggling to see why these have been banned? I thought America was supposed to be tolerant of different people's religions etc?

    What's everyones opinion on this
    So I guess according to you America only has christians, right? A country that boast that it's everybody's country, including indians ( practise different religions), refugees and mexicans and middle easterns, and the many blacks who spread into many different religions, even the jews, and the so many athiests.

    What your saying is that none of thee people matter, right?

    - Dexnell
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    What CAN happen, is that we ensure that the courts are seen to be as impartial as possible, and that we send the message that one's personal religious beliefs have no place in the courtroom.
    Peoples religious beliefs are going to be found in a court room whether you like it or not. So long as one does not allow those beliefs to corrupt the law or threaten impartiality I don't see the problem.

    And I just don't see how having the Ten Commandments in a court room is a threat to impartial treatment of the accused in the US court system. It's a non issue.

    There's plenty that the Supreme Court should be doing to ensure fair treatment for all in the US court system; this wouldn't be my priority.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dexnell)
    So I guess according to you America only has christians, right? A country that boast that it's everybody's country, including indians ( practise different religions), refugees and mexicans and middle easterns, and the many blacks who spread into many different religions, even the jews, and the so many athiests.

    What your saying is that none of thee people matter, right?

    - Dexnell
    No. Were saying that there is absolutely no evidence that Christians make a strange hand signal in a US courtroom and get preferential treatment because of it. The US courts tend to treat everybody the same under the law (albeit imperfectly) and it makes absolutely no difference that the Ten Commandments are a feature in the courtrooms.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Peoples religious beliefs are going to be found in a court room whether you like it or not. So long as one does not allow those beliefs to corrupt the law or threaten impartiality I don't see the problem.

    And I just don't see how having the Ten Commandments in a court room is a threat to impartial treatment of the accused in the US court system. It's a non issue.

    There's plenty that the Supreme Court should be doing to ensure fair treatment for all in the US court system; this wouldn't be my priority.
    I agree it isnt as pressing as some issues.

    However - you dont think impartiality should be apparent as well as actual?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    b) Agreed. But frankly English barristers wear ridiculous wigs that don't serve much of a purpose either. Are we to rid ourselves of everything that serves no real purpose for the sake of modernity?
    Wigs make that very clear distinction between the offender and the power of the law.

    By wearing wigs, barristers are assuming a new role that demands respect and seriousness in the law. It creates an atmosphere in the court that is distinctive and recognisable, to get rid of the wigs, in my opinion, would be to take away one of barristers key tools.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    However - you dont think impartiality should be apparent as well as actual?
    Yes I do. But I don't think that the Ten Commandments is really seen as a sign that someone of a faith other than Christianity is going to be treated differently by anyone other than someone with too much time on their hands.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Wigs make that very clear distinction between the offender and the power of the law.

    By wearing wigs, barristers are assuming a new role that demands respect and seriousness in the law. It creates an atmosphere in the court that is distinctive and recognisable, to get rid of the wigs, in my opinion, would be to take away one of barristers key tools.
    Well, I don't think wigs should be done away with either. But I don't think we can use "creating an atmosphere of seriousness" as a reason to maintain them. There's nothing less serious about courts where wigs are not worn; ie, in the majority of courts throughout the world. People aren't exactly donning red noses and "having a laugh" in court rooms in the US.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes I do. But I don't think that the Ten Commandments is really seen as a sign that someone of a faith other than Christianity is going to be treated differently by anyone other than someone with too much time on their hands.
    Well clearly some do see it as such.

    Would you not object to the Quran being posted all round the court?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, I don't think wigs should be done away with either. But I don't think we can use "creating an atmosphere of seriousness" as a reason to maintain them. There's nothing less serious about courts where wigs are not worn; ie, in the majority of courts throughout the world. People aren't exactly donning red noses and "having a laugh" in court rooms in the US.
    As said - the point isnt that they serve no purpose, the point is that they serve little purpose aside from tradition btu also DONT CAUSE OFFENCE. They may have no redeeming qualities - but they dont need them. The posting of the ten commandments do.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Would you not object to the Quran being posted all round the court?
    Not if I was in an Islamic country; no.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    As said - the point isnt that they serve no purpose, the point is that they serve little purpose aside from tradition btu also DONT CAUSE OFFENCE. They may have no redeeming qualities - but they dont need them. The posting of the ten commandments do.
    Well, you'll always offend someone. That's life.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, I don't think wigs should be done away with either. But I don't think we can use "creating an atmosphere of seriousness" as a reason to maintain them. There's nothing less serious about courts where wigs are not worn; ie, in the majority of courts throughout the world. People aren't exactly donning red noses and "having a laugh" in court rooms in the US.
    Well of course not, but the practice is deeply imbedded into the British legal system. The wigs are instantly recognisable to the offender, and because they are so well established, they place the barristers above the offenders, and it increases the gravity of the situation.

    Whilst i'm sure the system could get by without them, wigs are a clear symbol of justice in the law. It is a common custom and a part of our system of law, to remove the wig from a barrister would be like asking George Bush to make his state of the union address in a pair of adidas bottoms.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Not if I was in an Islamic country; no.
    What makes it an Islamic country?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, you'll always offend someone. That's life.
    You dont think it should be avoided when it comes to the Judicial system if possible? What are the PROS of allowing such documents to be posted in public in a court, that is supposed to be seen to treat all people equally, those of certain faiths and those of none? Why suffer the offence, and image of impartiality it may cause? TO placate those who are Christian?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    What makes it an Islamic country?
    That the majority of the country practice Islam/consider themselves Muslim?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    That the majority of the country practice Islam/consider themselves Muslim?
    So because 51% of the US believes in Jesus, its ok to offend the other 49%? Its ok to have judicial institutions be seen to endorse one faith over another?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,723

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.