SkipCaptcha
175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: +
Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution? (view source)
Revision as of 04:25, August 23, 2011
, 04:25, August 23, 2011no edit summary
:Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:19, 17 January 2007 (EST)
:Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:19, 17 January 2007 (EST)
:::Can I just add that the swastika is actually a mirror-image of the Hindu symbol, not the actual symbol, and so are different. (Although because of the swastika, most people are likely to think the Hindu symbol is the swastika, or the swastika drawn wrongly.) Just saying - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:25, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is silly because you are conflating the judge in his roles as a private citizen and public servant. In a courtroom, which is a public building, there is separation of church and state, no religious paraphernalia allowed. But in his private life, he can practice any religion he wants.
::This is silly because you are conflating the judge in his roles as a private citizen and public servant. In a courtroom, which is a public building, there is separation of church and state, no religious paraphernalia allowed. But in his private life, he can practice any religion he wants.