Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex
Well, if a judge is incapable of rendering justice then the problem is with the judge, not with the law.

The Constitution forbids judges from interfering and determining religious matters.

There is Canon law that is capable of addressing blasphemy, and there are experts from the realm of the church that can testify in front of a secular judge.

Irrelevant. The laws of a particular religion cannot be Consitutionally enforced by a judge.

I agree that this society is sick and no rational lawmaking is possible in it.

Nonsense. Our system works just fine.

I am yet to see a Christian interest upheld in any measure by today's courts.

What exactly is a "Christian interest" and when have the courts struck them down?

358 posted on 01/26/2005 1:24:36 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies ]


To: Modernman
The Constitution forbids judges from interfering and determining religious matters

Where? Your paraphrase of the issue is noted: at issue here is not "religious matters" in general but a tort of indecent behavior.

What exactly is a "Christian interest" and when have the courts struck them down?

Christian monuments have been removed from public places or their construction blocked by court decree on numerous occasions and Christian celebrations were denied or curtailed by municipalities, and the crackdowns on religious expression were held up by the imbecile courts. I am sure you can think of specific examples.

365 posted on 01/26/2005 1:36:07 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson