Except of course that the whole ‘separation of church and state’ is not a law as far as I know. It appeared in a bit of private correspondance between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist association, to reassure them that the government was not going to be establishing a national denomination.
Here is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
*“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” *
If the judge in question is freely exercising his religion, then what’s the problem? If he’s requiring others to follow it using the power of his position…yeah, there’s a problem. If the judge is sentencing murderers, and happens to reference ‘Thou shalt not commit murder’ which is one of the Ten…but doesn’t mention the bit about graven images…and the law of the land also happens to prohibit murder…what’s the problem?
Until somebody in government actually requires me to obey some religious dictate, because it is a religious dictate…I don’t care if some judge happens to be a Christian, a Jew, an Atheist, a Hindu, a practitioner of Voodun, or anything else. If he interprets the law fairly, honestly, and impartially, I don’t care if he has 666 branded on his forehead.
Pick your battles, indeed.
Next we’ll be requiring everyone in public office to be a sworn atheist. Ooops…that’d be requiring a certain belief system, too.
There’s been past precedents though of this type of behavior being struck down as violating the Establishment Clause…not so much that the government employee officiates a specific religion, but -endorses- any religion. An argument could be made that by showing off his Commandmentness, that the judge’s ability to rule on whether the law is broken is biased in the sense that the judge may think of his biblical laws first over the country’s secular laws.
I can’t dig up an internet cite just yet, but I recall a case where a public school had set aside time for ‘school prayer’. And the school argued that it wasn’t violating the law because the prayer time was nondenominational. But it was ordered to stop sanctioned prayer-time anyway on the grounds that it was an endorsement of religion nonetheless.
I agree that many people, here and in the general public, incorrectly assume that the establishment clause is a strict statement of seperation of church and state. Or rather, of religion and state. It’s not. But how is this case different from Roy Moore’s case, which has been decided to be unconstitutional? Or, are you disagreeing with that decision as well?
No way. What’s this guy’s doing is illegal, under current legal precedent. I’m not going to look the other way when a judge is flagrantly defying the law in his own courtroom. He doesn’t agree with the law, that’s fine. He wants to change the law, he can work towards that. But if he breaks the law, he needs to be punished. If he’s doing this as a form of civil disobediance, well, I can respect that. But that doesn’t protect him from the consequences of his actions, which in this case, should be his removal from the bench if he persists in wearing the robe.
That’s what we have to put up with for the next four years, folks – all the right-wing nutjobs are coming out of the woodwork because they believe that Bush’s re-election (statistically identical to the numbers from 2000, mind you) is a sign that their looney-tunes beliefs are suddenly vindicated.
[quote] John Mace: I agree that many people, here and in the general public, incorrectly assume that the establishment clause is a strict statement of seperation of church and state. Or rather, of religion and state. It’s not.
Care to elaborate, John? That is such a tease.
The judge as a private citizen can have the Ten Commandments embroidered on all of his clothing. But when he dons that robe, he is no longer acting as a private citizen. He is acting in an official capacity as an arm of the government. People in his courtroom are there on government business – not for religious instruction.
It seems obvious to me that the judge is breaking one of the Ten Commandments when he describes his reasons for wearing the Commandments. If they really do help him to decide what is right and what is wrong, then doesn’t it make more sense to have them written down in front of him so that he can seem them easily? I think he is not being truthful about his motives. “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”
Maybe the only cure for the Christian Right will be for government officials outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition to begin to push their agendas. A few robes bearing “bin Laden is the Messiah” might help them to understand why we really don’t want to go there.
I wish you believed that. You actually believe, based on your other posts, that judges SHOULD decide what’s right and wrong, consistent with YOUR understanding of right and wrong, and no one else’s.
Two accused criminals come before his bench. One wears a t-shirt that reads, “Real Men Love Jesus”. The other wears a shirt that says, “Christianity is Stupid” (a la the old Negativland song).
I suspect these two hypothetical people would receive starkly different treatment in his courtroom.
I bolded the important part, at least as far as this case goes. The reason is that Judge Roy Moore has already said that he plans to use this case as part of his appeal, citing the case of inches v miles (give 'em one and they want t’other). I know that the slippery slope argument is tiresome, but if this sort of crap keeps up we’ll likely have to replace ole lady justice with a crucifix.
Having said that I think this guy is an attention whore looking to martyr this particular career in favor of another, but that’s just my opinion.
We could let him keep it if he sews on passages from other religions, and maybe some laws too. It’ll be the holy/legal/robey equivalent of a NASCAR outfit.
If a gay defendant enters the courtroom with this loon it DOES matter. I’m betting it matters to about 57 million Americans (who do have minds). If you don’t care, that’s your prerogative.
Please come and attaxck me again when I say that outsiders looking to the Chrstian Madness in the USA can see no separation of Chruch and State and can see how Christianity intervenes at all levels of society. Upto the courtooms.
I would be dead by now I would have felt all the vicious attacks of SDMB membvers e whenever I say this. Including the attacks on my posts about Lunatic Moore and his “judgements” made in accordance with the Ten Commandments ,like I heard him say himself he did, and like he confirms once more in the article
Once again:
Are the decisons of this judge Moore - done according the Ten Commandments which he declares to be the moral basis of US law - overruled, the cases reopened and judged by an other judge? Because if the answer is no, you still have in your so called “secular” nation people convicted under the reule of the Ten Commandments Law.
The USA is not a secular nation as long as Christianity is able to put its seal on all what should be completely secular. Even if such lunatics like Moore and now this one have in the end their cases “overruled” or prevented to further their agenda while in public service, the mere fact that they can come up with such ideas and use them as long as they are officialy in function says enough.
The mere fact that they get “elected” to be in that function because of their ideas and actions, says enough.
You don’t even have to look at the US presidential election circus to know that the USA is a Christian nation, no matter how you twist and turn it.
Salaam. A
Not true. I have never once used the terms “right and wrong” in this respect. I’ve always argued just the opposite, that judges should enforce the Constutution as it is written rather than finding loopholes or creating ridiculous constructions such as “ceremonial deism” out of whole cloth in order to impose a personal religious or moral influence on their decisions.
I’ve wondered how beloved he would be if the passage embroidered was in Arabic and read “There is no g_d but Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Prophet of Allah”.
In every courthouse I’ve ever been in, this statue was present somewhere (warning: link not work-safe according to John Ashcroft as it has a titty showing). Some have argued that “she’s a pagan goddess and therefore she shouldn’t be there neither”, but then some require bibs when they eat fried chicken but we don’t have to pay them heed. She’s not there for any religious purposes because nobody really worships her, but as a visible and personified reminder that 'JUSTICE IS {or should be} BLIND" to all things but guilt and innocence. When a judge wears a robe that has embroidered on it a purely religious message that in his own words helps him decide his cases even though it has next to nothing to do with the law code he enforces, he has not only taken off the Lady’s blindfold but is telling her what she sees.
Re: NASCAR- I’m not usually a fan of Bill Maher, but I loved one of his suggestions: that Senators and other politiicans should have to wear the emblems of their biggest campaign and lobby sponsors so that we can remember “Okay, he’s the one who’s owned by tobacco and shipping… and that’s the software deregulation and S&L guy…”
