What’s to discuss? It’s prejudicial. The only way it wouldn’t be is if everyone in the court had ash on their foreheads.
So you believe that Muslim women should and could be asked to remove their head coverings in a courtroom setting because they are prejudicial?
Was the case about religion? How is the display of ashes prejudicial in a criminal or civil case NOT involving religion?
I'd really like you to lay out the logic behind your statement.
No, it may,repeat may, have been predjudicial, and no evidence was offered that it was. But the judges ruling absolutely denied the First Amendment right of Freedon of Religion to the attorney.
And they very well could have. Many non Catholics flock to Catholic Churches on Ash Wednesday to receive the ashes on their forehead.
It only signifies that one is a sinner. — See what the priest says above.
I agree with you - it was right to remove it.
Now, don’t get me started about that twit Biden going on TV with the ashes! The twit had to have his TV makeup put on around the ashes (or the ashes re-applied)!!!
It is a violation of the attorney’s civil rigths to demand him remove what is not to be touched! I was always taught that removing the ashes is akin to rejecting Christ.
Towards the prosecution or the defense?
Were all the jurors Catholics?
Or were they Calvinists who'd consider him to be an idiot for wearing ashes and hence might be swayed towards the defense?
The only way it wouldn’t be is if everyone in the court had ash on their foreheads.
Does everyone in the court wear the same color jacket? Does everyone in the court wear the same hairstyle? If a lawyer has long hair and a ponytail is that "prejudicial"? Should the judge tell him to get a haircut if he's the only one with long hair?
I say the American flag in the attorney's lapel is "prejudicial". Get rid of it.