• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is SCOTUS turning us into a Christian nation?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SCOTUS let a Muslim prisoner die without access to his imam.
THis case seems simple. A man who is a Muslim is being executed. He was told several months before the execution he could have have a religious person in the room wih him, although he was never told ot shown the rules concerning the religious person. A week before his execution he told the prison he wanted to have his Imam with hi in the room. The prison refused, saying that only the Christian prison chaplin could be there for him. His attorney applied to SCOTUS to halt the proceeding until the prisoner was granted the right to have his imam with him. The SCOTUS refused to either stop the execution of force the prison to allow the imam the prisner was asking for. The prisoner was executed. This seems to go along with the other decisions that the SCOTUS has made since becoming very right wing, in that it seems to more than favor only the rights of those who profess to be Christians.
 
independentusa said:
SCOTUS let a Muslim prisoner die without access to his imam.
THis case seems simple. A man who is a Muslim is being executed. He was told several months before the execution he could have have a religious person in the room wih him, although he was never told ot shown the rules concerning the religious person. A week before his execution he told the prison he wanted to have his Imam with hi in the room. The prison refused, saying that only the Christian prison chaplin could be there for him. His attorney applied to SCOTUS to halt the proceeding until the prisoner was granted the right to have his imam with him. The SCOTUS refused to either stop the execution of force the prison to allow the imam the prisner was asking for. The prisoner was executed. This seems to go along with the other decisions that the SCOTUS has made since becoming very right wing, in that it seems to more than favor only the rights of those who profess to be Christians.
Click to expand...

Hmm... did his victim have "access to" a religious person of their choosing before their death?
 
independentusa said:
SCOTUS let a Muslim prisoner die without access to his imam.
THis case seems simple. A man who is a Muslim is being executed. He was told several months before the execution he could have have a religious person in the room wih him, although he was never told ot shown the rules concerning the religious person. A week before his execution he told the prison he wanted to have his Imam with hi in the room. The prison refused, saying that only the Christian prison chaplin could be there for him. His attorney applied to SCOTUS to halt the proceeding until the prisoner was granted the right to have his imam with him. The SCOTUS refused to either stop the execution of force the prison to allow the imam the prisner was asking for. The prisoner was executed. This seems to go along with the other decisions that the SCOTUS has made since becoming very right wing, in that it seems to more than favor only the rights of those who profess to be Christians.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in The Constitution guranteeing the right to have a clergyman present at your execution. The court's purpose is to uphold The Constitution.

The emboldened part isn't accurate. The prison policy only allows employees in the execution chamber and the prison doesn't employ any imams.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
There's nothing in The Constitution guranteeing the right to have a clergyman present at your execution. The court's purpose is to uphold The Constitution.

The emboldened part isn't accurate. The prison policy only allows employees in the execution chamber and the prison doesn't employ any imams.
Click to expand...

Yet the Constitution does state there shall be no state religion and by having and allowing only a Christian minister as chaplin, isn't that state making Christianity the only state sanctioned religion in this case?
 
independentusa said:
Yet the Constitution does state there shall be no state religion and by having and allowing only a Christian minister as chaplin, isn't that state making Christianity the only state sanctioned religion in this case?
Click to expand...

I've already explained to you that isn't accurate.
 
apdst said:
I've already explained to you that isn't accurate.
Click to expand...

You do not get it, the law in that state allows for a clergy to be there when you are executed, but is seems the only clergy they allow is Christian. Thus, that makes it a state sanctioned religion and the SCOTUS agreed with allowing the state to having only a Christian clergy there. In the end then, the SCOTUS has approved a state sanctioned religion, that being Christian/
 
independentusa said:
SCOTUS let a Muslim prisoner die without access to his imam.
THis case seems simple. A man who is a Muslim is being executed. He was told several months before the execution he could have have a religious person in the room wih him, although he was never told ot shown the rules concerning the religious person. A week before his execution he told the prison he wanted to have his Imam with hi in the room. The prison refused, saying that only the Christian prison chaplin could be there for him. His attorney applied to SCOTUS to halt the proceeding until the prisoner was granted the right to have his imam with him. The SCOTUS refused to either stop the execution of force the prison to allow the imam the prisner was asking for. The prisoner was executed. This seems to go along with the other decisions that the SCOTUS has made since becoming very right wing, in that it seems to more than favor only the rights of those who profess to be Christians.
Click to expand...

No...we already are...OVERWHELMINGLY. Lucky for gays, women who are raped,, adulterers, etc....ALL OF WHOM would be PUNISHED, possibly EXECUTED , if we were a muslim nation, as Tlaib , Farrakhan etal are actively working to make us.
 
independentusa said:
You do not get it, the law in that state allows for a clergy to be there when you are executed, but is seems the only clergy they allow is Christian. Thus, that makes it a state sanctioned religion and the SCOTUS agreed with allowing the state to having only a Christian clergy there. In the end then, the SCOTUS has approved a state sanctioned religion, that being Christian/
Click to expand...

Prison policy doesn't allow people who aren't employees of the prison to be present in the execution chamber.

You've really jumped the tracks on this one.

As far as Dominique Ray goes? He raped and chopped up a 15 y/o girl, so **** him, anyway.
 
independentusa said:
Yet the Constitution does state there shall be no state religion and by having and allowing only a Christian minister as chaplin, isn't that state making Christianity the only state sanctioned religion in this case?
Click to expand...

Nope. NO ONE IS requiring one to see the chaplain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom