Our laws were based on the Bible. If a man kills a pregnant woman he gets charged for two murders, but if the woman aborts her baby it's not murder. I hear what you're saying that dry crisp rules or laws should be paper and pen and nothing of the unknown. Maybe evoking the word God is unnecessary if the law already states what is illegal or not but it's still started off all the laws starting with the Bible and branched out from there. I see nothing wrong with the ten commandments. Why cut off the roots and just keep the flower you want?
There is a lot in that comment that lacks nuance not fit to address here. But the bottom line is simple, the first amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. Incorporating specific religious tenets or texts into jurisprudence comes dangerously close to doing just that. If we stand by the first amendment, then we must concede that any judge can invoke any religious dogma into his opinion, which would lead to chaos and inconsistency.
I agree I'm just talking about the system as a whole and where it all originally started from. I would not like if I broke a law and was sentenced for probation or jail and the judge at the end of his sentencing through in some religious overtones to make things worse inside my head to fuck with me. Excuse my French.
Our laws were based on the Bible. If a man kills a pregnant woman he gets charged for two murders, but if the woman aborts her baby it's not murder. I hear what you're saying that dry crisp rules or laws should be paper and pen and nothing of the unknown. Maybe evoking the word God is unnecessary if the law already states what is illegal or not but it's still started off all the laws starting with the Bible and branched out from there. I see nothing wrong with the ten commandments. Why cut off the roots and just keep the flower you want?
There is a lot in that comment that lacks nuance not fit to address here. But the bottom line is simple, the first amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. Incorporating specific religious tenets or texts into jurisprudence comes dangerously close to doing just that. If we stand by the first amendment, then we must concede that any judge can invoke any religious dogma into his opinion, which would lead to chaos and inconsistency.
I agree I'm just talking about the system as a whole and where it all originally started from. I would not like if I broke a law and was sentenced for probation or jail and the judge at the end of his sentencing through in some religious overtones to make things worse inside my head to fuck with me. Excuse my French.