Alabama Judge Wears Ten Commandments on Robe

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Good for Him. What does writing on a robe have to do with getting a fair trial? Was God involed in the veridict because the writing was on the robe? If so, I hope the guy is found guilty. Wish people would stop whining about everything that doesn't have any affect anyway.

Ever hear of the seperation of church and state? Or is the constitution only applicable when it fits your viewpoint?

I am not religious, but its not like he is not still judging based on US law and not the ten commandments. I don't see why its such a big deal.

So if that same judge was a Satanist and decided to wear a robe detailing the laws of Lucifer, you would have no problem at all as long as he continued to judge based on US laws? Personally, I have nothing against religion and embrace the concepts of the 10 Commandments, but the fact is that public officials should maintain a high level of ethics by not creating issues to further a personal agenda.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Good for Him. What does writing on a robe have to do with getting a fair trial? Was God involed in the veridict because the writing was on the robe? If so, I hope the guy is found guilty. Wish people would stop whining about everything that doesn't have any affect anyway.

Ever hear of the seperation of church and state? Or is the constitution only applicable when it fits your viewpoint?

I am not religious, but its not like he is not still judging based on US law and not the ten commandments. I don't see why its such a big deal.

So if that same judge was a Satanist and decided to wear a robe detailing the laws of Lucifer, you would have no problem at all as long as he continued to judge based on US laws? Personally, I have nothing against religion and embrace the concepts of the 10 Commandments, but the fact is that public officials should maintain a high level of ethics by nor creating issues to further a personal agenda.

I just told you I'm not religious, having the 10 commandments isn't really any different than having Satan's law or the Koran or whatever. Its all just stories to me.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Good for Him. What does writing on a robe have to do with getting a fair trial? Was God involed in the veridict because the writing was on the robe? If so, I hope the guy is found guilty. Wish people would stop whining about everything that doesn't have any affect anyway.

Courtroom fashion statements are not appropriate for a trial judge...

 

[0roo0roo]

not to mention anyone with any basic reason could see the 10 commandments are a horrible basis for modern law. look at the 10.. all 10 of em.


and roy moore as an example. moore urging the denial of adoption rights in a civil adoption decision for a lesbian couple said that homosexuality, "violates both natural and revealed law. thus making it a detestable and abominable sin." That?s legal analysis for ya oh judges who are protectors of our constitution, not their religion?.

And he basically said that gay people should be executed. "the state carries with it the power of the sword. that is the power to prohibit physical conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement, and even execution. it must use that power to prevent the subversion of children towards this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle."


http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Ever hear of the seperation of church and state? Or is the constitution only applicable when it fits your viewpoint?

That's not part of the constitution.

Constitution, Article VI, Section III


" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) p 705.

Umm... all that states is that there can't be any kind of religious test to be in office, right?

 

[poopaskoopa]

But he's not one of those liberal activist judges Bush warns us about.

 

[Amused]

Folks, when a judge does something like this, it becomes FAR too close to the state establishment of religion forbidden by the First Amendment.

The only way to keep the state from establishing a religion AND to guarantee the freedom of religion is to keep the church and the state separate.

But don't listen to me... Listen to the men who wrote and inspired the first amendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus, building a wall of separation between Church and State" (Thomas Jefferson, 1802, letter to Danbury Baptist Association).

"The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State" (James Madison [author of the first amendment], 1819, Writings, 8:432).

"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance" (James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555).

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Govt (sic) will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822)

 

[Injury]

He shouldn't be wearing that, but on the same token the reason for wanting the case extended is just plain crap.

{Attorney Riley Powell, defending a client charged with DUI, filed a motion objecting to the robe and asking that the case be continued. He said McKathan denied both motions.

"I feel this creates a distraction that affects my client," Powell said.}

Yes, just like the distraction of alcohol affected him from making a smart choice and not driving. If it were a murder trial or something more serious, I could understand the argument here, but not for a damn DUI. What defense can you seriously have against a DUI that can be distracted? Now, I'm not saying he should be selective in when he wears it (it shouldn't be worn.) but in this instance, it shouldn't be an issue.