The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Supreme Court bans 10 Commandments

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Avatar for Howard
Howard
5
inequality
I fail to see how the Ten Commandments hanging in a court room is benefiting the law. Get rid of it, it's a piece of pointless junk in a courtroom.


It's symbolic of law and does no harm to anyone.
Howard
It's symbolic of law and does no harm to anyone.

It's symbolic of Christianity or Judaism or whatever, and is not symbolic of law for everyone. Courtrooms should be neutral in a religious sense.
Reply 122
Avatar for Howard
Howard
5
inequality
It's symbolic of Christianity or Judaism or whatever, and is not symbolic of law for everyone. Courtrooms should be neutral in a religious sense.


Whatever.

My own first hand experience of the US legal system is that it is severly wanting in many areas; I'd have thought the Supreme Court might have something better to do with their time, that's all. Still, who the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.
Howard
Whatever.

My own first hand experience of the US legal system is that it is severly wanting in many areas; I'd have thought the Supreme Court might have something better to do with their time, that's all. Still, who the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

Ooo I'm so scared.
Reply 124
Avatar for Howard
Howard
5
inequality
Ooo I'm so scared.


Pillock. :rolleyes:
Lord Waddell
Well the ten commandments should be there, as the USA is a Christian country and as yawn said, they were the original laws for mankind. The ten commandments could help the judge to reach a fair verdict.

except for the fact that theyre a bunch of made up crap? And the fact that christianity wasnt the first religion anyway?
your last comment made me pray for you you to become less naive, but then i remembered there was noone there......
Reply 126
Avatar for Howard
Howard
5
cottonmouth
except for the fact that theyre a bunch of made up crap? And the fact that christianity wasnt the first religion anyway?
your last comment made me pray for you you to become less naive, but then i remembered there was noone there......


They're not really "crap" are they? I should have thought most of them quite the opposite.
Reply 127
Avatar for djchak
djchak
9
"It's symbolic of law "

That is totally subjective.

I could say a picture of a Shinto diety killing people was "symbolic of law" and say it should be put in the courthose. That doesn't mean it has any business there.

Hey, we could show it to all plaintiffs before they enter the courthouse. That would be fun.. :biggrin:
djchak
"It's symbolic of law "

That is totally subjective.

I could say a picture of a Shinto diety killing people was "symbolic of law" and say it should be put in the courthose. That doesn't mean it has any business there.

Hey, we could show it to all plaintiffs before they enter the courthouse. That would be fun.. :biggrin:


Well, consideration is given to graphic evidence in court as to whether the probative value outweighs the potential prejudicial effect. Photos of people being killed as a symbol of law, just as decoration, would probably be held to the same guidelines, and thus be disallowed. Your example doesn't really suit the nature of the topic.
Reply 129
Avatar for Howard
Howard
5
djchak
"It's symbolic of law "

That is totally subjective.

I could say a picture of a Shinto diety killing people was "symbolic of law" and say it should be put in the courthose. That doesn't mean it has any business there.

Hey, we could show it to all plaintiffs before they enter the courthouse. That would be fun.. :biggrin:


The whole nonsense is totally subjective. One person in a million is likely to be offended by by the Mosaic laws being in a courthouse and fewer still suffer and misjustice because of it.

If you notice some courts in Kentucky were instructed to remove their TC's whereas another in Texas was permitted to keep theirs. The reason? The one in Texas, said the judges' ratio decidendi, had been there long enough to qualify as a historical rather than a religious adornment. Sounds like a pretty subjective end to a pretty subjective ("some people might be offended") legal battle. WTF? How about some joined up thinking?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you