Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    The day that courts start making decisions on the basis of public opinion will be a SAD SAD day indeed.
    I was speaking from a Constitutional sense, actually.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    The day that courts start making decisions on the basis of public opinion will be a SAD SAD day indeed.
    Isn't that what they do all the time?

    A government that wants to implement laws has to have public backing in the first place to get them into government and enable them to make the laws.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Isn't that what they do all the time?

    A government that wants to implement laws has to have public backing in the first place to get them into government and enable them to make the laws.
    Thats the legislature not the courts. The courts are there to interpret the law and develop the common law in line with logic not emotion.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Thats the legislature not the courts. The courts are there to interpret the law and develop the common law in line with logic not emotion.
    The law they are interpreting is the law that has been laid down according to public opinion - is it not?

    Oh, forget it! This will go round and round in circles knowing your analytical mind!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The law they are interpreting is the law that has been laid down according to public opinion - is it not?

    Oh, forget it! This will go round and round in circles knowing your analytical mind!
    Lol .. well not necessarily - many laws have been passed in the face of public opinion... moreover the common law is developed independent of staute. As such there was never a question of it being introduced at a precise point in time. The courts are supposed to determine matters on the basis of logic, analogy and reason. Personal emotions and the opinion of the public shouldnt come into it at all. That is precisely the reason against allowing the government to set mandatory senteces etc... or more specifically cases like Brown v Board of Education in the US - where segregated schools were prohibited by the courts despte public opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wishing to state my opinion, nothing else; This is unbelievable, I couldnt understand why anyone would take offence to having these decorative-more-than-anything-else rules hanging in a public building. The 10 comandments were of course the first set of moral guidelines which the majority of people adhere to. These guidlines are not enforced upon people, America is not a Church State and Im sure does not wish to enforce the 10 commandments upon people.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr_browne)
    Wishing to state my opinion, nothing else; This is unbelievable, I couldnt understand why anyone would take offence to having these decorative-more-than-anything-else rules hanging in a public building. The 10 comandments were of course the first set of moral guidelines which the majority of people adhere to. These guidlines are not enforced upon people, America is not a Church State and Im sure does not wish to enforce the 10 commandments upon people.
    They arent anything LIKE the first moral precepts people adhere to. Aside from not bearing false witness, stealing or murder - which do we adhere to?

    They arent merely decorative - there is a real religious connection - shich is why you see pastors and religious nuts protesting outside the supreme court and having prayer sessions... historical my ass...

    The fact is not just baout them being forced on people but about them being seen as a guiding set of rules in ANY way whatsoever. Additionally its not just about effect - if you do not believe in a christian god - the fact that state institutions are favouring one religion over another is understandably distressing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Living in a predominatley Christian country with the Government pledged to representing the views of the people (aka democracy) I would expect Christianity to be conciously or subconciously favoured. Although I would prefer a free, where everyone is equal, society this continual dumbing-down of religion is also distressing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr_browne)
    Living in a predominatley Christian country with the Government pledged to representing the views of the people (aka democracy) I would expect Christianity to be conciously or subconciously favoured. Although I would prefer a free, where everyone is equal, society this continual dumbing-down of religion is also distressing.
    Dumbing down? In what way?

    The fact is that the constitution overrides public opinion. The courts are guided by the law not what people want from one day to the next. The entire purpose of constitutional rights and rules is to protect minorities. Thus to say that the majority want something is neither here nor there. If a sufficent group do - then they simply have to vote in people who will change the constitution to permit it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Incidentally they are not pledged to represent the views of the people. They are pledged to represent the interests of the people - but they are elected to vote and act in their own discretion. They are not mere cyphers - they are not moutpieces or some sort of human polling machine...

    "a delegate owes you and his conscience, and he betrays both if he sacrifices the latter to the former" - or somethign along those lines.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Dumbing down? In what way?

    then they simply have to vote in people who will change the constitution to permit it.
    They tried, remember, what was it around 46%? I think that voted against the current Government.

    Dumbing Down, as in gestures such as this where religion is asked to keep itslef under wraps, where the American church, with all of its recent problems recive further negative press and a vote of no-confidence form the Government.

    I understand your point about the constitution wanting to keep religion and the state separate but I see the country as becoming ever more secular which in my view is not the right thing for a country to do.

    Religious beliefs have supported the human race from its exsistence, long before governments were formed there were belief cults and then religion, as religion became organised it found itself more popular but that support is now waining, a fact not helped by the governments of the world making decisions like this one.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr_browne)
    They tried, remember, what was it around 46%? I think that voted against the current Government.
    Huh? I dont follow.

    (Original post by fr_browne)
    Dumbing Down, as in gestures such as this where religion is asked to keep itslef under wraps, where the American church, with all of its recent problems recive further negative press and a vote of no-confidence form the Government.
    not exactly dumbing down. Besides - its not asking religion to go into hiding - its simply saying that the state shouldt get involved. A big difference.

    (Original post by fr_browne)
    I understand your point about the constitution wanting to keep religion and the state separate but I see the country as becoming ever more secular which in my view is not the right thing for a country to do.
    I think secularisation of a government is both wonderful and reason for rejoicing. The faith of individuals should not encoarch upon the lives of others through the medium of the state. There is nothing wrong withg a secular state at all... religion is personal thing, not a matter for government.

    (Original post by fr_browne)
    Religious beliefs have supported the human race from its exsistence, long before governments were formed there were belief cults and then religion, as religion became organised it found itself more popular but that support is now waining, a fact not helped by the governments of the world making decisions like this one.
    Praise be to no one then ... its natural intellectual evoltion that people are turning away from superstitution, cults, unsubstantiated beliefs and faith that leads to judgement of others and a lack of understanding for other points of view. Hallelujiah
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Huh? I dont follow.
    Presidential Elections 2004. You said "they simply have to vote in people who will change the constitution to permit it." The American people did try and vote someone else in.


    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Praise be to no one then ... its natural intellectual evoltion that people are turning away from superstitution, cults, unsubstantiated beliefs and faith that leads to judgement of others and a lack of understanding for other points of view. Hallelujiah
    I was hinting that as religion became organised it became viable and found its palce in society. i dont think "natural intellectual evolution" involves the demolition of religion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr_browne)
    Presidential Elections 2004. You said "they simply have to vote in people who will change the constitution to permit it." The American people did try and vote someone else in.
    Which of the candidates favoured changing the constitution to allow the establishment of a religion?

    (Original post by fr_browne)
    I was hinting that as religion became organised it became viable and found its palce in society. i dont think "natural intellectual evolution" involves the demolition of religion.
    I disagree, I think that its a natural evolution to require evidence for beliefs, rahter than accepting the millenia old writings blindly.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NMiller5a)
    The US is so peculiar; outside its major cities it is a hotbed of fervent Christian religiosity (and sometimes even in them, see the above post), yet its government was founded by revolutionary Enlightenment intellecutals. Obviously these two forces conflict; sometimes the religious torrent sweeps in obviously anti-secular references (hence the relgious money,) but sometimes, when the reference is too blatant, such as the words "God is Thy lord and Thy Master" emblazoned in huge print in a court, the secular side intervenes.

    Rulings like these, however, likely are something that will soon end. If one of the 4 left-leaners (or to use American terminology, liberal) members (or the moderately conservative Sandra Day O'Connor, whos swing vote usually makes the decision, as it did today) retires, George Bush will likely be able to appoint a staunchly conservative member in his/her place to tip the balance. The relgious right is a growing concern in the US; one needs only to look at the reputation of Billy Graham - twenty years ago he was a derided fanatic, now he's an American hero. The secular side will continue to diminish in influence as traditionally secular capitalist Republicans continue their informal alliance with the religious right to further their own goals and as the Democrats attempt to maintain their historical black and latino bases (both for the most part religous populaces, rapidly growing (the latinos,) and without whom the Democrats cannot win elections) by becoming more friendly to religion. This trend is independent of Bush's immediate fortunes, which currently look as though they may become quite dire and cost the Republicans the 2006 election. It is (to me, sadly) inevitable as both sides increasingly pander to this large interest group.
    Great post.

    I have mixed feelings, I'm not religious and favour a separation of church and state, but regret the loss of secure national identity which I think this ruling reflects.
    A few generations ago almost all Americans would have said almost automatically that the US was a christian nation, founded on an anglo-saxon heritage, with a strongly european foundation.
    Such statements would of course be frowned upon nowadays. The 'multiculturalism' which has replaced the old strong rooted euro-centric identity is pretty shallow and requires a lot of state intervention and propoganda to keep it afloat...and still it sinks.
    Very divided country.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Of course they should be banned. The 10 commandments are Christian, and religion has no right to interfere with the state in my opinion.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    No muslim would feel uncomfortable with the ten commandments 'hanging overhead'. We believe in them too!

    Honour your mother and father etcetera... all of that!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by yawn)

    I would imagine that the other religions have a set of rules to be kept by their adherents that are very similar to the original laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai.
    Thankk you ayaan for corroborating what I said on a post on the first page of this thread!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, most of them are very basic:
    don't kill
    be nice to your parents
    don't steal
    Not to mention both jews and muslims believe in these specific commandments from Moses(AS).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    Of course they should be banned. The 10 commandments are Christian, and religion has no right to interfere with the state in my opinion.
    Actually, the Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses who was a jew. I fail to see how the Ten Commandments hanging in a court room is "interfering" with the law. Are all the judges saying "well, the law says this but the law can go get screwed because God said this to Moses?"
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

913

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your 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.