Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61

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

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Should Presiding Judges be allowed to preach their Religion in the Courtroom?

    That might depend on the nature and extent of the preaching. A few isolated minutes shouldn’t violate any reasonable sense of a proper notion of separation of church and state.
    What the fuck is a 'proper' notion of CSS?
    The noun phrase “separation of church and state” refers to something, but the phrase itself is a label that although is meant to capture the essence of what it refers to, it doesn’t capture the nuances pertinent to it; it would be a mistake therefore to allow a proper notion to hinge on a strict adherence to the meaning of a word contained in a label.

  2. Top | #12
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,845
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,345
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Should Presiding Judges be allowed to preach their Religion in the Courtroom?

    That might depend on the nature and extent of the preaching. A few isolated minutes shouldn’t violate any reasonable sense of a proper notion of separation of church and state.
    What the fuck is a 'proper' notion of CSS?
    The noun phrase “separation of church and state” refers to something, but the phrase itself is a label that although is meant to capture the essence of what it refers to, it doesn’t capture the nuances pertinent to it; it would be a mistake therefore to allow a proper notion to hinge on a strict adherence to the meaning of a word contained in a label.
    Okay. Completely new question, then.

    What the fuck is a 'proper' notion of CSS? What are these nuances?

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    The noun phrase “separation of church and state” refers to something, but the phrase itself is a label that although is meant to capture the essence of what it refers to, it doesn’t capture the nuances pertinent to it; it would be a mistake therefore to allow a proper notion to hinge on a strict adherence to the meaning of a word contained in a label.
    Okay. Completely new question, then.

    What the fuck is a 'proper' notion of CSS? What are these nuances?
    There are degrees of separation. I think it would be inaccurate to think there is no separation unless there is complete separation.

  4. Top | #14
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,845
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,345
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    The noun phrase “separation of church and state” refers to something, but the phrase itself is a label that although is meant to capture the essence of what it refers to, it doesn’t capture the nuances pertinent to it; it would be a mistake therefore to allow a proper notion to hinge on a strict adherence to the meaning of a word contained in a label.
    Okay. Completely new question, then.

    What the fuck is a 'proper' notion of CSS? What are these nuances?
    There are degrees of separation. I think it would be inaccurate to think there is no separation unless there is complete separation.
    But what is WRONG with absolute separation? Where do you find support for degrees of separation?

    The constitution, for one thing, says 'no religious test' for office. None seems complete. It doesn't suggest a shallow religious test, or a ceremonial deism test, would be okay. They also don't suggest gradations of office, like 'no religious test for positions above a G8 level, with religious testing allowed for G7 and below.'

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post

    There are degrees of separation. I think it would be inaccurate to think there is no separation unless there is complete separation.
    But what is WRONG with absolute separation? Where do you find support for degrees of separation?

    The constitution, for one thing, says 'no religious test' for office. None seems complete. It doesn't suggest a shallow religious test, or a ceremonial deism test, would be okay. They also don't suggest gradations of office, like 'no religious test for positions above a G8 level, with religious testing allowed for G7 and below.'
    Some people embrace their faith as a guide (like a lighthouse in the night) as they journey through life, and as such a person’s religion becomes apart of them. That doesn’t mean they are permitted to impose their views on others and form some obligation or duty to acquiesce, especially from those entrusted to carry out governmental duties, but a person’s position and duties therein may call for adhering to the principle of church and state separation, but in what way that pertains to the individual espousing their own personal views that in no way creates a duty, obligation, or responsibility seems to me beyond the scope of separation of church and state.

    If a judge wants to impart his views that so happen to have a religiously based backdrop once in a while, I don’t actaully see that as a violation.

  6. Top | #16
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    5,276
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    10,315
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post

    There are degrees of separation. I think it would be inaccurate to think there is no separation unless there is complete separation.
    But what is WRONG with absolute separation? Where do you find support for degrees of separation?

    The constitution, for one thing, says 'no religious test' for office. None seems complete. It doesn't suggest a shallow religious test, or a ceremonial deism test, would be okay. They also don't suggest gradations of office, like 'no religious test for positions above a G8 level, with religious testing allowed for G7 and below.'
    Some people embrace their faith as a guide (like a lighthouse in the night) as they journey through life, and as such a person’s religion becomes apart of them. That doesn’t mean they are permitted to impose their views on others and form some obligation or duty to acquiesce, especially from those entrusted to carry out governmental duties, but a person’s position and duties therein may call for adhering to the principle of church and state separation, but in what way that pertains to the individual espousing their own personal views that in no way creates a duty, obligation, or responsibility seems to me beyond the scope of separation of church and state.

    If a judge wants to impart his views that so happen to have a religiously based backdrop once in a while, I don’t actaully see that as a violation.
    So this judge could have handed her a colander and told her to meditate on the FSM. Or maybe give her a bust of Satan for her mantle, or a small golden calf.

    If it's protected behavior for a judge to hand out bibles then it's protected behavior to hand out anything. Can you think of anything that could not be handed out? I'd like to hand out copies of the Skeptics Annotated Bible and bumper stickers that say Religion is just Pretend - Gods are for Losers.

  7. Top | #17
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,845
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,345
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Some people embrace their faith as a guide (like a lighthouse in the night) as they journey through life, and as such a person’s religion becomes apart of them. That doesn’t mean they are permitted to impose their views on others and form some obligation or duty to acquiesce, especially from those entrusted to carry out governmental duties, but a person’s position and duties therein may call for adhering to the principle of church and state separation, but in what way that pertains to the individual espousing their own personal views that in no way creates a duty, obligation, or responsibility seems to me beyond the scope of separation of church and state.
    So, weird question here, but after all this justification, I am driven to ask what is the fucking scope of CSS? What do you think the line is that they should not cross? And how would you show that this line is supported constitutionally?

    If a judge wants to impart his views that so happen to have a religiously based backdrop once in a while, I don’t actaully see that as a violation.
    Once in a while? Just a teensy bit subjective.

    So, how many children-custody decisions can one judge make that use the judge's religious beliefs about one or more parent's sexuality? Or race? Or political activism? One per month? One child in 40? Once per high holy day?

  8. Top | #18
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,845
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,345
    Rep Power
    0
    The very first CSS lawsuit was started by Catholics. Their kids were praying in school and they wanted it stopped.
    It was a Baptist prayer.

    The court upheld that the free practice of their religion meant that they had to be protected from a different religion. No person has a right to make anyone else live by their religion. It's infringing on a fairly important freedom. Top ten, even.

    I wouldn't even want a Christain judge telling Hovind that the tax-dodging, science-illiterate, scammer is a poor excuse for a Christain. He is, but that's not the reason we put judges on the benches.

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60

  10. Top | #20
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,845
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,345
    Rep Power
    0
    I don't feel like a blind visit to a website, can you tell me what it is about, and with what authority it speaks?
    I mean, you did say 'proper' notion of CSS, which implies, at least to me, that the founfing fathers meant a particular thing, or the SCOTUS descision, or something official to coincide with your claim of 'proper.'
    Is this Federalist Paper grounded, or what?

Posting Permissions

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