All I was trying to say is that a cross of ashes on a judge’s forhead would look bizzare to someone who was not familiar with the practice, much as Goth makeup looks bizarre to a lot of people who are not members of the “group.”
However, I do think that any out-of-the-ordinary facial makeup/markings/ashes do look unprofessional. They take attention from the proceedings. Instead of focusing on the decision, people may focus on the mark on his face. Regardless of what his decision is, some may feel that it was unduly influenced by his faith because he’s making a public “show” of it in a place where such displays are not common. (A cross/Star Of David necklace, or even a yarmulke are discrete, where ashes on the forhead are very obvious.)
Unless one argues that the judge removes his religious beliefs as easily as he removes the ashes on his forehead, then I can’t think of a reason to ask the judge to remove them. Clearly those religious beliefs are present whether or not it is Ash Wednesday, and the judge is expected to act impartially with respect to those beliefs in the performance of his duties.
As for out-of-the-ordinary – I think the reasonable person might initially be startled if they didn’t realize what day it way, but it’s hardly enough to distract anyone for any length of time. The only caveat would be if the day’s arguments were somehow religiously charged, in which case some circumspection might be called for.
A yarmulke is “discrete”? You’re kidding right?
Maybe in Skokie or other predominantly Jewish communities…but there are plenty of places where a yarmulke is not “discrete”…but “very obvious”.
Can you…with a straight face…tell me that you don’t notice Dick Cheney wearing a yarmulke in this photo? :rolleyes:
As long as religious icons are fair game…I’ve seen plenty of crosses and Star of David jewelry that are quite noticable/obvious.
Is a Hindu bindi “discrete” or “very obvious”…does it look “bizarre” to a non Hindi?
Would you tell a Hindu judge or MickeyDs employee (that was your example) to remove it because it’s “not professional” and “creepy”? You have to admit it’s at least as “out of the ordinary” as a simple smudge?
The bindi is at least as noticable as a smudge of ash on the forehead…hell maybe more so.
…which it almost never does. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my almost two years in law school doing nothing but reading endless judicial opinions, 6 or 7 per day at least, it’s that the vast majority of cases have absolutely ZERO moral, political, or religious content. The number of times I’ve read a case and said, “hmmmm, could the political bent of the judge or his religious views have affected the outcome” is a small percentage overall. What exactly is the Catholic position on whether joint and several liability should be imposed in Tennessee, and whether damage should be allocated to phantom parties, or whether the court should adopt a pure comparative negligence standard?? I somehow doubt we’ll have a papal edict ex cathedra on that issue anytime soon.
As for the issues that religion does speak to? The aforementioned Roe example is illustrative. If the Catholic justice Blackmun could not only write the majority opinion in that case, but go out of his way to concoct a federal issue as if from nowhere to give the court “authority” to rule on the issue, then there is NO WAY that anyone can say in good conscience that religion is so pervasive that it unfairly affects the outcome of cases.
(BTW, for those who think that political affiliation creates bias…you’d be astounded by the number of cases in which “arch-conservative” Scalia reaches a decision that furthers a traditionally liberal cause like environmentalism. He’s a textualist with respect to legislation, whether that analysis leads him to a pro-right or pro-left decision. Pure constitutional issues are a different thing entirely, but it’s still not a 100% right-wing record.)
I’m an agnostic and it doesn’t bother me. I don’t see how it really has any bearing on the judge’s ability to run a courtroom or make fair rulings. I can see where it might conceivably have some subtle prejudicial influence on a jury if religion were a significant part of the case (say a lawsuit involving the Catholic Church) but even this, I think, would be negligible. It certainly isn’t enough to override his free practice of religion. It’s only for one day a year,a anyway. If the judge simply wears the ashes all day (as per well established Catholic tradition) but makes no other comment or reference to them while he is on the bench, I see no constitutional problem here.
That picture is a bad example. Had he not been bending down, I would not have noticed it as much–perhaps just caught a glimpse of it.
After all, how often do you take a good, hard look at the * back * of a judge’s head?
**
I’m sure that it could look strange to someone who is not familiar with the culture. Where I live, I have never seen anyone with ashes on their face, or, other than a woman in a supermarket, wear a bindi. (Which, actually, I think are quite pretty.) I suppose if I lived in an area in which such things were common I would not react as I did to the OP. My point of view comes from a person who is not familiar with the custom of ashes on the forehead, and I think my reaction would be shared by many such kind of people. In no way do I think that that people who wear crosses of ashes are “wrong,” just out-of-the-ordinary to me.
As a boss, I don’t think that I would tell my employees to remove a bindi, but I, for some reason, might think differently about ashes. I don’t really have an explanation for this, other than the bindi seems more “indelible” in some way. Ashes, despite their significance, sort of imply “dirty face” to me, much like the phrasing of the title of this thread. A bindi is small, whereas a cross of ashes is somewhat larger and more obvious. A bindi is also “neat,” being uniform in size and regular in its shape. A cross of ashes may be smudgy, and during the day, wear off to the point where it just looks like the person has a patch of dirt on their forehead.
I have seen some of my bosses ask employees who were wearing large religious jewelery to tuck it inside their clothing, but never saw one who had a problem with a small cross or Star of David. (The issue, the boss explained, was ostentation.) O have also seen bosses ask employees to pin up their hair, or put it in a cap. For some women, long hair is an expression of their faith, such as Pentecostals. Is this supression of religious expression in the same way asking them to wash off a cross of ashes would be? I have also seen bosses insist the employee wear the “uniform” slacks, when some religions insist that women wear dresses. (I don’t know the legal ins-and-outs of such a situation.)
Nor do I think that the judge should not be allowed to express himself. All I was trying to say is that his appearance might be startling to some, and potentially alarming to non-religious folk who might feel that he won’t give them a fair shake. I realize that with or without the ashes he is still the same person, and will make the same rulings, but appearances do make impressions, and to some, the impression might not be positive.
As I said before, I really did not intend to offend anyone, and if I have inadertently done so, I deeply apologize. I was just expressing a personal reaction. Not being used to seeing them, a cross of ashes on anyone’s face in a professional setting, let alone a judge in a formal courtroom, is odd to me.
Actually, you said much more than “it was odd” to you.
You said it was “creepy”.
You said that to have ashes on the forehead for the remainder of the day at a workplace was “unprofessional”.
A Hindu bindi is “odd” to me. I consider it “unusual”. I do not consider it “creepy” or “unprofessional” in the work place.
I noticed that you punted on the question of a Hindu woman wearing a bindi in the workplace…and whether a boss could get away with firing her…you know if he/she thought that the bindi was “unusual…creepy…unprofessional”
Fine…because I know judges never bend down …or turn around backwards (offering essentially a similar view)
How about this then? I hope judges occasionally turn to the right or left in your community?
Are you realy going to say that many defendants, attorneys and jurors would not notice that?
Beagle - in my experience, the judges are usually requiring that the lawyers bend over …
As I said in my OP, this is certainly not a huge issue. I guess underlying my OP is a personal preference that a judge go out of their way to not provide any foundation for a litigant to think that the decision was based on anything other than the facts. I think this is one reason I personally would prefer and recommend dress and grooming on the “conservative” end of the spectrum from behind the bench. IMO the bench is not the place for a judge to make a fashion, political, philosophical, or religious statement.
Tensions often run hot in the courtroom, and the vast majority of cases have one winner and one loser. And IME the loser frequently looks for something to blame OTHER THAN the weaknesses in his position. In my personal preference, a judge exercising discretion would go out of their way to remove any suggestion that their decision might have been based on or influenced by their personal personality/philosophy/religion/etc.
I can certainly relate to that line of thinking more than a suggestion of creepiness or unprofessionalism. I don’t think that a smudge of ash on the forehead one afternoon crosses that line, however. YMMV.
Of course one could ask whether a Judge Goldbergshould recuse himself/herself from all cases involving the Klan?
Right, which is why I indicated that the display, by itself, is not a problem in my mind.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I’d rather a public official in this sort of position of authority was clear about their own personal beliefs. It’s sort of an announcement; it makes it possible for objective observers to evaluate whether or not the religious faith is interfering with his judgement.
I mean, a guy with an ash smudge on his forehead, you know where he’s coming from, and you know, more or less, what to look for philosophically to make sure he’s being fair and carrying out his duties appropriately. But a guy without a smudge or any other outward indication of personal belief: How do you know he doesn’t have “Church of Satan” tattooed across his ass?
Call me cynical, but I’m willing to consider the possiblity that a lawyer would appear in court with a smudge of dirt on his forehead if he thought it might elicit some sympathy from an all- or mostly-Catholic jury on Ash Wednesday. Even if that lawyer hadn’t been to Mass in more than twenty years.
I’m just not convinced that an “outward indication of religious belief” directly reflects a person’s true feelings. Especially a lawyer’s.
I think employees at a restaurant could justly be asked to keep their appearances proper (i.e. faces clean) in much the same way a factory worker who works on whirling unshielded machinery could be asked to remove a long dangling rosary necklace, or a construction worker could be required to remove his turban if he could not be properly fitted with a hard hat.
I think y’all are missing a mighty big point here. You can question whether a judge is biased or not, based on whatever reasons you choose, but when all is said and done, a judge has to apply THE LAW. Decisions about evidence admissibility, jury instructions, motions ruled upon, etc. all have to be based upon and explained based on the law. It wouldn’t matter if the judge was Christian, Buddist, Wiccan, or whatever - he’s simply precluded from using any personal beliefs/attitudes in lieu of applying the law.
And let’s step back from an assumption here. It’s been assumed throughout that the judge had to be Catholic since he has the ashes on his forehead. Well, that’s actually a fair leap - lots of non-Catholics attend Mass for various reasons. It could be that his wife is Catholic, and in deference to her he attended the ceremony - and tons of other possibilities come to mind as well.
I think the real issue here is the belief by many that someone of any particular religious persuasion couldn’t apply the law impartially and fairly simply because of his or her religious beliefs - and I find that belief unfounded and unproven.
I find it somewhat disturbing that the burden for calming litigants unreasonable beliefs is somehow on the judge. There are plenty of people in this country who believe they cannot get a fair shake from a judge whose skin is of a different color than their own, or of a different religion. And by plenty, I mean lots and lots. By asking a judge to forsake his religious expression because a litigant may unreasonably draw the wrong conclusion, I think does a disservice to the judicial system.
What more can I say? Again, I apologise if you were offended, but forehard-ashes really do seem sort of creepy and strange to me, where a bindi, religious necklace, or yarmulke does not. I can’t really explain why-- it’s just a personal reaction, which I am not defending as right or justified-- just that it’s the way that I felt.
As I said, I’m not familiar with the legalities of these kinds of situations, but I doubt if a boss could “get away” with firing an employee who wears a bindi. I guess I see ashes sort of in a different light, because they seem a bit “messy.” Markings on the face of any type, paint, or ashes, or symbols seem out-of-place in a judicial setting.
Hey, I never claimed that my reaction was rational or correct. I just said that this was the initial impression that I had as an individual.
When I notice them, I think “hat.” Hats are not unusual. (Heck, I’ve seen lawyers wear cowboy hats in the courtoom.) When I see a cross, or Star of David, I think “necklace,” which also are not out-of-the-ordinary. If the judge were a Muslim female, I wouldn’t see a head scarf as being out-of-place, either, nor a turban. It’s just something about a smear of ashes that seems different from these other displays.
