Ala. Judge Wears Ten Commandments on Robe.

[D. Scarlatti]

... I profoundly doubt the guy's qualifications for being a judge.

Believe it or not, this character was originally elected as a Democrat. But that's Alabama politics for you, I guess.

 

[crazyfingers]

Didn't Moses bring down the ten commandments from Mt.Sinai?

I strongly doubt it.

Why wouldn't you have a problem with Moses' laws?

Because I don't believe in a god?

 

[crazyfingers]

As he was drafting the Constitution, James Madison, the father ofthe Constitution, wrote:

We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, but upon the capacity of Americans to govern themselves, control themselves, and sustain themselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

Just an interesting quote from one of the original framers of our government...

No he did not. That quote is a fabrication.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm

On page 120 of David Barton's book The Myth of Separation, David Barton quotes James Madison as saying:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

Barton gives the following footnote for the quotation:

Harold K. Lane, Liberty! Cry Liberty! (Boston: Lamb and Lamb Tractarian Society, 1939), pp. 32-33. See also Fedrick Nyneyer, First Principles in Morality and Economics: Neighborly Love and Ricardo's Law of Association (South Holland" Libertarian Press, 1958), pp. 31.

The only problem with the above is, no such quote has ever been found among any of James Madison's writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know where this false quote originated. Apparently, David Barton did not check the work of the secondary sources he quotes.

 

[Ave Maria]

Believe it or not, this character was originally elected as a Democrat. But that's Alabama politics for you, I guess.

Yikes! This guy is a Democrat?? Are you sure he didn't switch sides or something?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

According to an article in today's Mobile Register, he was originally elected as a Democrat but ran as an independent most recently.

The same article also mentions how many supportive telephone calls Judge McKathan has been receiving from all over the country, which would probably pale in comparison to the amount of supportive telephone calls William Rehnquist would receive were he to erect a 40-foot crucifix behind the bench of the Supreme Court.

 

[rosenherman]

That the Church will have the right to function as it deems fit and that the State may not make any law to the contrary, nor make any prohibitions to the contrary.

THIS is what the First Amendment means.

I disagree, based on that statement, the U.S couldn't outlaw bigamy because it was practiced by mormons as part of their faith.

The amendment was to keep the church from being run (or ruined) by the government. Henry VIII established himself as the head of the church of england in 1531 because the pope wouldn't give him permission to divorce. Queen Mary I who followed him in 1553 reverted the country to catholicism and burned protestants as heretics if they wouldn't convert. Queen Elizabeth, who came to the crown in 1558 re-established Protestantism as the official faith of England.
http://www.class.uh.edu/comm/comm_law/britain/EnglandAHistoryOf.html

America was founded by pilgrims looking for the freedom to worship the way they wished. Therefore they outlawed the creation or support of an official american religion.

"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 a redress of grievances."
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Don't tell me we have to start citing free exercise cases now. I can guarantee none of those have ever been brought by atheists, since they quite obviously don't enjoy that particular constitutional protection.

 

[AirPo]

America was founded by pilgrims looking for the freedom to worship the way they wished. Therefore they outlawed the creation or support of an official american religion.

I think an imporetant distinction must be made here.

The pilgrams founded a colony in 1620, and they did have an official religion.

It was over 100 years later that the country was founded, and it was those men who established a secular government.

 

[crazyfingers]

America was founded by pilgrims looking for the freedom to worship the way they wished. Therefore they outlawed the creation or support of an official american religion.

Not really. The pilgrims were quickly followed by the Puritans who did not value freedom of religion for anyone but themselves. They were among the worst at imposing official religions onto others.

The Puritan era was most certainly not built around any idea of freedom from an officil religion.

 

[trunks2k]

Not really. The pilgrims were quickly followed by the Puritans who did not value freedom of religion for anyone but themselves. They were among the worst at imposing official religions onto others.

Wait... I thought the pilgrims WERE puritans.

 

[crazyfingers]

Wait... I thought the pilgrims WERE puritans.

Yes and no. The Pilgrims were in that they wanted their religion to be "pure". But history makes a distinction betwen the original Pilgrims that landed on Plymouth, MA and the Puritans who came a short while later and moved to Boston. The Puritans eventually took over.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web03/

Edit to add

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web03/segment1.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web03/segment2.html

 

[Randall McNally]

Do you think that his or her outward appearance will affect his/her ability to render an objective verdict?

Maybe. I think I'm a reasonable person and I think a judge who appears to place Biblical strictures over secular ones can have his impartiality reasonably questioned.

 

[FaithfulInHim]

I have to agree with what has already been mentioned, I don't see the difference between this and someone wearing a cross around their neck.

 

[crazyfingers]

Maybe. I think I'm a reasonable person and I think a judge who appears to place Biblical strictures over secular ones can have his impartiality reasonably questioned.

Yup

 

[AirPo]

I have to agree with what has already been mentioned, I don't see the difference between this and someone wearing a cross around their neck.

How about a pentagram then?

 

[crazyfingers]

I have to agree with what has already been mentioned, I don't see the difference between this and someone wearing a cross around their neck.

The cross a personal thing. Having the 10Cs smeared all over his official uniform is certainly mean't to say a great deal more.

 

[trunks2k]

I have to agree with what has already been mentioned, I don't see the difference between this and someone wearing a cross around their neck.

A cross and this is very different. A cross is just saying "I'm a christian". What type of christian that person is unknown and it says nothing about the way in which that person will judge. Plus it's descreet and common. It's not something people will take a second look at.

But the 10 Commandments being emblazoned across his chest? That's a whole different story. That makes much more of statement than "I'm a christian." It implies a lot more about the way in which this person if going to judge.

 

[FaithfulInHim]

Crazyfingers and Airpo - yes, you've both made a point. I didn't think about it like that. Yes, I can see now where people would get offended. I'd be offended at a pentagram.

 

[AirPo]

I'd be offended at a pentagram.

I think the more important question, with respect to this particular situation, is would you trust that person to fair and unbaised when exerting his/her authority over you.

 

[FaithfulInHim]

I think the more important question, with respect to this particular situation, is would you trust that person to fair and unbaised when exerting his/her authority over you.

My first instinct was to say No. But then again, I don't know. You have certainly made me look at the situation differently from another view point. It's funny, I had already asked myself that question when you mentioned the pentagram.