NEWS: Judge Wears Ten Commandments on his robe

A judge in Alabama has decided to put the Ten Commandments on his judge's robe. The commandments are embroidered on the robe in letters large enough to be easily read. The judge claims that the Ten Commandments are the basis of all law in the US, therefore he is justified in wearing them though he has received at least one complaint from a lawyer defending a client with a DUI charge. The attorney said he would appeal if he loses the case and will include the judge's wearing of the "robe" a part of the appeal.



I would think this could be considered unconstitutional.
I would also think this type of "religion in your face" might be offensive to all Americans who aren't religious or who believe church and state should be seperate.



[edit on 28-12-2004 by Banshee]

The laws of western countries are based upon the ten commandments, but law and religion should not interfer with each other.

Not at all appropriate. I would think a judge would know better and to be impartial as far as religion is concerned.

[edit on 28-12-2004 by Holden]

I think is more correct to say that the principles behind the creation of the 10 commandments are the same principles behind the creation of today's laws.

I do not think that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" or "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" are translated in today's laws.

I would also think this type of "religion in your face" might be offensive to all Americans who aren't religious or who believe church and state should be seperate

...And I would be offended cause they might be offended.

Interesting article here concerning "church and state should be seperate":
The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State




seekerof

I wonder if he follow the Ten Commandments itself, after all if your are married you are still committing fornication even with your lawful wife as per bible interpretation.

Let�s not forget the "to not look your neighbor�s wife"

Maybe somebody will like to do a comprehensive analysis of the ten commandments and modern man in the 21 first century.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
The laws of western countries are based upon the ten commandments

The laws of western countries are not based on the 10 commandments and have long antecedents previous to the spread of christianity in europe, let along christian ecclesiastical law.

jupiter869
decided to put the Ten Commandments on his judge's robe

Hmm, not sure about this, I should think that they can basically wear whatever they want to wear, to a degree anyway. If a satanist, for example, wanted to wear a baphomet design on his judge's robe, I think that that'd be allowed, and I think that a cross or any religious pendant would be allowed also.

Also, the other judge who had a monument of hte 10 commandments outside the courthouse had it there specifically to say that these are the laws or at least bear a strong relation to the laws and that christian-jewish morality and ethics are the basis of the society and law, whereas this guy is at least saying a judge should wear it as a reminder to himself, which might be a little but different.
But obviously either way the State and the Church should'nt be mixed together. I'm not sure thats whats actually happening in this case, if it is then it should be prevented.

I find it discriminating against me and other people who don't believe in a god ..

religion is not allowed to go into politics that is by law.
even we in the netherlands have it we always say in Dutch
scheiding tussen kerk en staat.

diforce of state and church . religion may not interfere with politics.

Not a very comfortable thing to contemplate.

There's a lot of cases where people hide behind the Christian faith to run a scam. I wonder if an atheist or Witch could expect justice if they brought a case against a Christian in that court.

Justice should be blind to religion, color, sex, age....

"I would think this could be considered unconstitutional."

what? how so?


i swear people cant read correctly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

note: "respecting" was used to state laws which violate a religion cant be made, like legalising abortion, gay marriage, banning religious symbols, removing prayer from school, etc ALL violate the BILL OF RIGHTS and everyone has it backwards all because they dont understand the context this word was used "To avoid violation of or interference with" is this not hard to understand?

and why does everyone confuse the bill of rights and the constitution? they arent the same thing.


[edit on 28-12-2004 by namehere]

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I find it discriminating against me and other people who don't believe in a god ..

too bad really, its not violating any right of anyone.

Alabama courts require any muslim to remove headdress and scarfs...
so if they allow a judge to have the ten commandments, then they are opening the door for a stream of discrimination suits... religion and state... all or none... anything in between is dangerous.
we can have Iatollahs iran (state religion) or the former USA (no religion) inbetween we have china and russia where one religion dominates all others due to it being state supported, and all the rest struggle along and endure persecution.

Why a judge would do such a unprofessional thing is unknown unless he is campaigning for mayor...
and he might win in alabama... (YE HAW... THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!)

by the way, seekeroff... which of the 4012 branches of cristianity would you have the USA become?... since no 2 brances can agree on critical translations...
I think the snake handlers christianity sect would make a great state religion... or perhaps the branch davidians... or perhaps gnostics?

GOOD POINT "NAME HERE"
except i disagree with your interpretation of what is a natural right and what is a religious right...

it would take some debate... but i grant that anyone should be able to wear any religious symbol or sign in any way that doesn't literally get physically in someones way, as long as they are not at work...
I also grant that restricting prayer in schools is tantamount to facism... but only if it is "illegal" to pray in a school. (it's not, the controversy was of mandating a required prayer time)

but it should not be mandated that someone should believe the same as you or I. in other words, people can pray any where they want as long as they are not obligated to someone else during that time (work or school).

as to the other issues, those could be argued that no one is forcing any certain woman of religious persuasion to get an abortion... it does however violate a right of someone who wants an abortion, if someone else says "NO they cant"...due to their own reliogious faith...

as to gay marraige, they are just wanting the same rights of inheretance and community property that others have... but certain (not all) religions want to prevent that... that is mandating morality thru religion (which government should never mix with). If we were to set laws based on religion, then we would be no better than a muslim country that follows strict scripture law... and we agree with very few tenants of muslim law...

I think people should be able to look at judges as standing abover parties and religious directions to ensure justice is equally down to all citizens based upon the law and not on the deep south interpretation, otherwise well be having shotgun marriages and divorces again soon....





[edit on 28-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

TextMcKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. � The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong."

How can this Judge said something like this? it may apply to him and his personal believes, but the one size does not fit all, is many people in this country from other relgion and other believes in which ten commandments are not the world of their god.

I guess I see it as a personal view an agenda pushing issue. I would denied to be judge by somebody with public views like that specially if he or she wears them in his clothes.

Originally posted by namehere
i swear people cant read correctly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

note: "respecting" was used to state laws which violate a religion cant be made,

What? No it doesn't.

like legalising abortion, gay marriage, banning religious symbols, removing prayer from school, etc ALL violate the BILL OF RIGHTS

THey most certainly do not. THe people are not prohibited from practicing nor showing their religion, they are simply not going to get public time and resources to prop it up.

and everyone has it backwards all because they dont understand the context this word was used

Yeah thats right, everyone has got it completely backwards and its all based on a misunderstanding.

"To avoid violation of or interference with" is this not hard to understand?

This is absolutely not what it says. It says that the state can't back any religion, and the state can't stop the exercise of any religion. Legal abortion is not an interference with a religion.

and why does everyone confuse the bill of rights and the constitution? they arent the same thing.

Uhmmm, they are. The bill of rights are a set of ammendments to the constiution, ie they are the constitution, they are a subsection of it. THey are as much the constitution as the 'We the people' part is the constiution.

lazarusthelong
Alabama courts require any muslim to remove headdress and scarfs...

To reveal their identity, not because of religious concerns. They are required to show their faces in the same way that a KKK member would be required.

i grant that anyone should be able to wear any religious symbol or sign in any way that doesn't literally get physically in someones way, as long as they are not at work

What does it matter if someone is at work? A job shouldn't be able to force jews or sihks to cut their hair, or fundamentalist catholics from wearing a scapular or muslims from wearing those little brimless hats. Business is part of the non-public world, ie the non governmental world, and people have to be allowed to do those sorts of things.

countermeasures
I think people should be able to look at judges as standing abover parties and religious directions

Atheist. Communist. [/sarcasm]

marg6043
How can this Judge said something like this?

He's certainly entitled to say whatever he wants, especially in the non-regulated realm of the sources of morality/right and wrong.

I could be wrong here but I thought judges were supposed to use only the civic law of the land to make and influence their decisions. If i were not of jewish-christian beliefs I think I would be discriminated against if someone wore the ten commandments while his life is in my hands.

All I have to say is, what a pathetic moron. He should be removed. What next, judges with Nike robes? pfft.

Religion should be completely seperate from a court of law.