Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61

Thread: Should Presiding Judges be allowed to preach their Religion in the Courtroom?

  1. Top | #51
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,359
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,859
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by James Brown View Post
    ... a copy of the Koran with the words, "I strongly urge you to read this," the folks at Fox News would have aneurysms.
    ...hard-ons. Judicial activism, constitutional violation, untrustworthy religious nut, 'we warned you,' and so on. All w/out a trace of irony.

  2. Top | #52
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,104
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,143
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post

    For a public official in the performance of public service, particularly a judge, to show preference for religion and a particular religion is a clear violation of our constitution.

    If said judge goes to church on sunday that's not a violation, but to preach in a courtroom for religion and for a particular religion is unconstitutional.
    But there’s nothing in the constitution that would have us think that. It would take a whopsided interpretation of the constitution to believe that. It’s wishful thinking.

    There was not some objective to separate every aspect of church from that of the state.

    We had already established ourselves as a Christian nation, but it was not to be favored in law. We had freedom, and we wanted it to remain that way. We wanted to keep what we had and to impart some wisdom in place to keep us from devolving the way of what we’ve escaped.

    There was no desire to take prayer out of school. Things today are so muddled from original intentions it ain’t funny. It was a free will issue. Let the people do as they please and let neither the church nor the state dictate the other. If a judge wants to speak his mind for four damn minutes, sorry for your luck that it’s because you’ve committed a crime and can’t escape the preaching tirade. People can do as they please, and that includes a judge telling off a convict, and if the telling off is Bible-based, it takes disdain for religion and a hyper-liberal interpretation of our constitution to think that was meant to be separated apart.
    If it's all just about freedom of expression than when a teacher starts leading a class in prayer any child should be able to say anything he or she wishes, including reciting a completely different prayer, out loud. Any child should be able to sing any song they wish or carry on a conversation with anyone in the room. I mean, the teacher is merely freely expressing so why should any child be not allowed to do same? If it's just about expression then I'll express my desire to ignore you and do something else.

    Your argument is idiotic.

  3. Top | #53
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post

    For a public official in the performance of public service, particularly a judge, to show preference for religion and a particular religion is a clear violation of our constitution.

    If said judge goes to church on sunday that's not a violation, but to preach in a courtroom for religion and for a particular religion is unconstitutional.
    But there’s nothing in the constitution that would have us think that. It would take a whopsided interpretation of the constitution to believe that. It’s wishful thinking.

    There was not some objective to separate every aspect of church from that of the state.

    We had already established ourselves as a Christian nation, but it was not to be favored in law. We had freedom, and we wanted it to remain that way. We wanted to keep what we had and to impart some wisdom in place to keep us from devolving the way of what we’ve escaped.

    There was no desire to take prayer out of school. Things today are so muddled from original intentions it ain’t funny. It was a free will issue. Let the people do as they please and let neither the church nor the state dictate the other. If a judge wants to speak his mind for four damn minutes, sorry for your luck that it’s because you’ve committed a crime and can’t escape the preaching tirade. People can do as they please, and that includes a judge telling off a convict, and if the telling off is Bible-based, it takes disdain for religion and a hyper-liberal interpretation of our constitution to think that was meant to be separated apart.
    If it's all just about freedom of expression than when a teacher starts leading a class in prayer any child should be able to say anything he or she wishes, including reciting a completely different prayer, out loud. Any child should be able to sing any song they wish or carry on a conversation with anyone in the room. I mean, the teacher is merely freely expressing so why should any child be not allowed to do same? If it's just about expression then I'll express my desire to ignore you and do something else.

    Your argument is idiotic.
    There was nothing constitutionally wrong about leading a class in prayer back before biased asinine interpretations. The separation of church and state was not about keeping church and state separate. What was supposed to be kept separate is power influence.

    We neither want the church dictating governmental discourse nor the government doing the same. If the department of education mandates that students participate, THAT’s a constitutional issue. If you dislike the notion of non-participants being outed as different, that’s a social issue.

    There could be good reasons for tempering religiosity in certain situations, but whether or not an issue should be regarded as a constitutional issue should be directly related to the constitution’s wording, not some half-baked interpretation of a label used to reference a section of it.

  4. Top | #54
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,359
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,859
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    There was nothing constitutionally wrong about leading a class in prayer back before biased asinine interpretations.
    Yeah, yeah, sure.

    It's just that Catholics were upset that their kids went to school to be led in a Baptist Prayer. That was the first Church/Separation lawsuit. And the decision was to separate church and state, based on the constitution.

    So, whether or not that was the original intent, or whether that interpretation is or isn't asinine, it's the current interpretation. The Constitution includes the original Constitution, the Amendments, and the court decisions that expand upon the meaning of the articles in both documents.

    So that's where we are, no matter any wishful thinking about where we could have been with different decisions made alone the way...

  5. Top | #55
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    There was nothing constitutionally wrong about leading a class in prayer back before biased asinine interpretations.
    Yeah, yeah, sure.

    It's just that Catholics were upset that their kids went to school to be led in a Baptist Prayer. That was the first Church/Separation lawsuit. And the decision was to separate church and state, based on the constitution.

    So, whether or not that was the original intent, or whether that interpretation is or isn't asinine, it's the current interpretation. The Constitution includes the original Constitution, the Amendments, and the court decisions that expand upon the meaning of the articles in both documents.

    So that's where we are, no matter any wishful thinking about where we could have been with different decisions made alone the way...
    I admit error. I have some things to mull over.

  6. Top | #56
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,359
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,859
    Rep Power
    80
    Bravely said.

  7. Top | #57
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,029
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,828
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    But he brought hisvreligion into the courtroom, a spevific no-no,
    It’s not a constitutional no-no. There was no constraint to adhere to specific religious practices, nor was there restraint from practicing specific religious practices. A violation of that would be a constitutional no-no. See, whether he should have abstained from his mantra is not a constitutional issue, so even if there is some secondary reason to think it’s a no-no, it’s still not a constitutional one.
    Judge's salaries are paid for by taxpayers. The courtroom is paid for by taxpayers. A judge cannot preach his religion from the bench, while he is acting in his capacity as a judge, as this is blatantly unconstitutional. The judge is allowed to practice his religion and to preach to whoever he wants, as long as he does so on his own time and on his own dime.

  8. Top | #58
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,029
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,828
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    There was nothing constitutionally wrong about leading a class in prayer back before biased asinine interpretations. The separation of church and state was not about keeping church and state separate. What was supposed to be kept separate is power influence.
    You are wrong. Just because it used to be done doesn't make it right. Students and teachers are free to pray as they see fit, individually or in groups, as long as they do not interfere with the normal operation of the school. A teacher leading his class in prayer would be promoting a religion using time and resources paid for with public money, and would also be interfering with the normal operation of the class, which is the education of students.

  9. Top | #59
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    27,181
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,933
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    There was nothing constitutionally wrong about leading a class in prayer back before biased asinine interpretations. The separation of church and state was not about keeping church and state separate. What was supposed to be kept separate is power influence.

    We neither want the church dictating governmental discourse nor the government doing the same. If the department of education mandates that students participate, THAT’s a constitutional issue. If you dislike the notion of non-participants being outed as different, that’s a social issue.

    There could be good reasons for tempering religiosity in certain situations, but whether or not an issue should be regarded as a constitutional issue should be directly related to the constitution’s wording, not some half-baked interpretation of a label used to reference a section of it.
    Leading the class in prayer is about favoring that religion over all others. That is not keeping the powers separate!

  10. Top | #60
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Georgia, US
    Posts
    3,514
    Archived
    3,862
    Total Posts
    7,376
    Rep Power
    75
    I grew up when we were required to pray in the public school everyday. It was the so called Lord's Prayer, a meaningless Christian ritual. My Baptist evangelical parents supported prayer being taken out of school because most of my teacher's were Catholic and they believed that religion didn't belong in the public schools or in public places. We also read the Bible every morning, usually something from the OT. It was all nonsense. The kids didn't really pay attention. It just took us away from learning.

    As far as the judge giving the woman her Bible, I honestly don't give a fuck. It may be technically wrong, but there are times when I don't think it's worth making a big fuss over something like that. I have a friend who caused a big stink over a church having a prayer breakfast for some athletes in one of the high schools because the coach stood by and bowed his head. The breakfast was optional for the students. She had the FFRF use their resources to fight this. They lost the case as the coach said he wasn't taking part in prayer. He was just trying to be respectful. I told my friend I felt this was too trivial to fight, but she strongly disagreed with me. She lost the case anyway, and now a lot of the Christians on the other side think that atheists are disgusting assholes. Nice people, aren't they?

    My point is that some things are worth fighting for, especially when it comes to using tax payers money for religious reasons or when prayer is mandatory. But, imo, not every tiny infraction is worth fighting for. I used to walk out of meetings when I worked for the state of NC because our head supervisor always started things with a Christian prayer. I'd return shortly after she finished. What she did was highly inappropriate, but it wasn't worth it to me to do anything other than walking out. Imo, we should choose our battles very carefully.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •