Aldebaran you dimwit, the institutions, not the people, are suppose to be secular. Hence the uproar.
Mind you this is what? The hundredth time someone has tried to explain it to you so I doubt it’ll stick this time either.
Shows what a heathen I am. I read this as “shove those condiments” up your ass. I thought it was a rant against a waiter who’d brought Worcestershire instead of A1.
The judge’s robe is inappropriate.
But you’re OK with loopholes like penumbras and emanations that include the right to privacy, the right to abortion, the right to same-sex marriage, and the right to consensual sodomy, also “whole cloth” in their source.
Spare me.
Sounds a bit . . . busy to me. How does he accessorize this wrap? A kicky little gold-lamé clutch and pillbox hat?
Considering the odds of someone both following the correct religion combined with the odds of someone who believes in said correct religion, would anyone even notice if Habib Najahasafalan were to disappear from the his desert island (because being there is the only way he could avoid sinning, of course)?
Hmmm…
-Joe
Yes. The turban is a required aspect of the Sikh faith. Banning this would place an undue burden on the ability of the Sikh to freely exercise his religion.
Wasn’t there a poem about that? It’s not unambiguously non-blasphemous…
Yes and yes. And I already said a judge can wear a crucifix. He can also wear a yarmulke or ashes on his head on Ash Wedensday. Thos things are aspects of personal practice, they are not official endoresements.
But when a judge wears actual written commands about who and how to worship, you’ve got yourself an establishment violation, pure and simple.
The judge is just a publicity pimp.
You know, Bricker, I respect the validity of strict constructionism. But it’s not the only valid point of view, and just like Biblical literalism it is fraught with argument when the text has to be interpreted in order to apply it to situations it couldn’t have specifically addressed. Your point of view on the subject is both rational and legally unimpeachable, but it’s not the only viewpoint that a person may share. You sometimes seem to refuse to acknowledge any view that’s not based on your own personal reading of the document, and you trip over yourself to point out when others opinions are not consistent with your own views. Having different opinions than you on the constitution does not necessarily make one a hypocrite, and it’s also okay to take a break from your Liberal Hypocricy Patrol and, for instance, acknowledge that the judge here is behaving in an utterly inappropriate manner.
You mean like his comment in post #43?
No. I recognize a legitimate view back there amongst the penumbras and emanations. But to call for a strict adherence to the law when you want it, and then support the penumbras when you don’t… THAT doesn’t fly.
Yes, it does. People aren’t upset about this because the sight of the ten commandments is offensive, they’re upset because it’s an endorsement of religion by a government official. I would be equally outraged even if I agreed with the sentiment expressed on the judge’s robe. It’s not appropriate for a judge, acting in his official capacity, to express any opinion on religion, pro- or con-, Christian or otherwise.
Huh? Was this addressed to me?
Enters thread
Sees Bricker has said exactly what he would have said.
Exits thread.
So, Bricker, when’s my next shift? You’re pulling heavy duty these days. 
I disagree that equal protection is a “penumbra.”
Appropros of nothing, I once briefly played in an accoustic guitar combo called Penumbra.
We won’t fret about it.
Take him out and shoot him. I’ll swear out the warrant later.
Me, too. How about that?