Judge Puts Commandments on Robe

[Luke T.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judge Puts Commandments on Robe

This is all consistent with what I said. Page 2 of the link shows the east frieze tablets, and specifically identifies it as "The Bill of Rights." Folks who say that this tablet represents the commandments are wrong.

I incorrectly said that Moses is on the south frieze. He is acutally on the north frieze.

The Court's own discussion states that Moses is a part of "larger scuptural groups," which is what I described earlier.

Nowhere in the Supreme Court is there an English text of any commandments. The north frieze shows, as I said: "only portions of commandments that are even visible (in Hebrew) are those pertaining to secular law." No matter how you number the commandments (whether you use the Baptist version or the "Readers Digest" version or the Lutheran version), commandments 6-10 pertain to secular, not religious, duties.

Does it really make a difference if the English text of the commandments is on display or not? The Ten Commandments are plainly on display in the Supreme Court building, regardless of the form of their presentation.

 

[Luke T.]

The article in the opening post doesn't say what form the Ten Commandments are in on his robe.

 

[Brown]

The article in the opening post doesn't say what form the Ten Commandments are in on his robe.

The article doesn't say what version of the commandments was on his robe, but it does say "The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge," suggesting a textual rather than a symbolic presentation.

 

[Luke T.]

The article doesn't say what version of the commandments was on his robe, but it does say "The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge," suggesting a textual rather than a symbolic presentation.

Does it make a difference?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judge Puts Commandments on Robe

Does it really make a difference if the English text of the commandments is on display or not? The Ten Commandments are plainly on display in the Supreme Court building, regardless of the form of their presentation.

The flag of Virginia features a woman with a bare breast. Technically, airing footage of the flag or state seal could incite an FCC fine. Will that happen? No. But if someone dressed up like that woman for a commercial, you can be sure someone would complain.

Even if there's a bit of stone sculpture in the Supreme Court building, stuck up in a frieze or on a back wall, that's different that having a judge wearing the same thing on his robe. As a matter of practicality it's different. There are objections to having "In God We Trust" on the coinage, but those are few in number and degree to what would happen if public officials chanted that phrase, with upraised eyes and arms, while doing their jobs.

To a philosopher, perhaps they're the same thing. To a realist, one is so minor an issue to be ridiculous, the other rather serious.

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judge Puts Commandments on Robe

Does it really make a difference if the English text of the commandments is on display or not? The Ten Commandments are plainly on display in the Supreme Court building, regardless of the form of their presentation.

Has anyone ever said otherwise? It's the context of their display that's relevant. A display of their secular importance as an example of early law is appropriate in an institution such as the Supreme Court, as long as it is not given undue emphasis.

Their religious aspect, however, has no place in any government institution. Do you doubt that a giant stone monument, or the text of the commandments on a robe, is intended as an endorsement of Judeo-Christianity, and Christianity in particular? That's forbidden by the Constitution. And, for all Judge Moore's inexplicable whining about federal courts having no jurisdiction over Alabama, it's also forbidden by Alabama's constitution.

Jeremy

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Judge Puts Commandments on Robe

Does it really make a difference if the English text of the commandments is on display or not? The Ten Commandments are plainly on display in the Supreme Court building, regardless of the form of their presentation.

In my judgment, it makes a hell of a difference, yes.

There are quite a few folks who don't agree with that, saying that if there is ANY commandments representation in the Supreme Court, then ALL commandments displays are okay. And that is very likely NOT what the court is going to say.

My best guess is that the Court is going to say that some commandments representations are permissible with the following limitations: (1) the text of the Commandments is not presented; (2) the Commandments are not given undue emphasis.

It is a big deal whether the text is displayed, for a number of reasons. First, there are many versions of the commandments, which differ from one another in scope and content. There are at least four distinct Biblical versions (see Ex. 20, Ex. 34, Deut. 5, Mark 10). The Baptists use another version, the Lutherans yet another, the Catholics yet another, and so on. If the Court were to allow textual displays, the Court could easily find itself having to say WHICH version of the Commandments is the correct one. If the Court approves Judge Moore's version, for example, the Lutherans and the Catholics would--with justification--complain that that text is the WRONG text.

To avoid the mess associated with deciding which version of the Commandments ought to be posted, the easiest and wisest course is to say that NO ENGLISH TEXT should be posted. This would be consistent with what the Court itself does.

Second, at least three (or four, depending upon what version of Commandments you think is the correct one) commandments are directed to plainly religious duties: what god you should worship, how you should worship, how you shouldn't worship, and when you should worship. These religious duties are not a foundation for US laws, and are effectively not adoptable as laws because of the First Amendment. The Court itself does not display text that pertains to religious duties.

Of course, many people would howl if displays could only show seven (or six, depending upon version) secular commandments. In general, the feeling is that the commandments come as a set, and it would not be right to post the text of some while omitting others. Once again, the easiest and wisest course is to say that no English text be permitted.

 

[Brian]

Anyone know what the dress code is for an Alabama judge?

Anyway, would The Nine Satanic Statements be acceptable?

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

 

[Luke T.]

Anyone know what the dress code is for an Alabama judge?

Anyway, would The Nine Satanic Statements be acceptable?

Better still, would a symbolic representation of the 9 satanic statements be acceptable? The numbers 1 through 9 inside a pentagram, or somesuch thing.

 

[Daylight]

From the above news story
The case raised comparisons to former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from office in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery.

Moore said Tuesday he supports McKathan's decision to wear the Ten Commandments robe.

"I applaud Judge McKathan. It is time for our judiciary to recognize the moral basis of our law," Moore said.

Isn’t the real reason he’s happy is this is another attempt to push his religion on others? Which would make the above a Lie? Which would mean he just broke one of the 10 commandments?

 

[a_unique_person]

Bunch of girly-boys. I want to see them tattoo the commandments on their forehead, in big letters so no-one can miss them.

 

[Art Vandelay]

What I find most disturbing about this is that it is clearly being done for juvenile motives: the 10C monument was removed, so it's time for retaliation. This isn't about the moral basis of laws, this is about petty shenanigans that should embarrass every member of the Alabama bar. What abunch of sore losers.

 

[Brown]

For the record, the robe included a text of one version of the commandments. CNN showed the robe. CNN also showed that this judge's chambers feature an autographed smiling photo of ex-judge Moore.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I should add that this matter should be--and perhaps will be--referred to the Alabama body that disciplines judges and judicial officers. Judges usually recognize that they need to regulate themselves in order to maintain confidence in the judicial branch.

Will they order him to disrobe?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

It seems that the various local courts are always claiming poverty. Here is a chance to make some money. Since this judge chose to be sponsored by Jeebus, maybe we should allow "Court TV" or the company that makes the gurneys for executions be allowed to advertise on judges' robes as well. Heck, if the defendant in a case is rich, allow he/she to advertise on the judge's robes as well.

Charlie (let's privatise everything) Monoxide

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...maybe we should allow "Court TV" or the company that makes the gurneys for executions be allowed to advertise on judges' robes as well. Heck, if the defendant in a case is rich, allow he/she to advertise on the judge's robes as well.

Hmm, advertising on uniforms? And Southern-based? Let's call it NASCOURT.

 

[Ladewig]

You know, I have no problem with this judge wearing the ten commandments - to me it is no different than those WWJD braclets or pendents that were so popular for so long.

Yes it is just like a braclet - provided that the braclet were three square feet in size.

Also, unlike the ten commandments monument, this is a personal item to the individual, not something that proclaims this is how the whole court is run.

So a monument not located inside any the courtrooms proclaims how the court is run, but the words embroided on a judge's robe provide no indication on how the court is run? Even though the judge himself said, "The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong." By the way, if that really were the goal, then shouldn't the judge have the words embroided upside down so that he can more easily read them while wearing the robe?

The man is a believer and that is acceptable in this country. I also reserve the right to wear clothes embroidered with God is a myth or to wear a Darwin Fish or just the words Evolution is a FACT! That is a personal choice.

Well, if it is all just personal choice, then can we assume that no Alabamian would object to a criminal court judge embroidering the words "evolution is a fact," on his robes? What about the letters KKK?

. . . . . . . . . . .

 

[shanek]

What about these ten commandments?