More than likely the attorney who had issue with the judge probably has a guilty client and no way to bail their butt out so was grasping at any straw to get the case bumped to another time.  Stall tactic.

More than likely the attorney who had issue with the judge probably has a guilty client and no way to bail their butt out so was grasping at any straw to get the case bumped to another time.  Stall tactic.

Or the lawyer really is disgusted by a judge thumbing his nose at the rulings of the higher courts.  The Alabama State Supreme Count ruled that a monument displaying the ten commandments in the entryway of a state courthouse was an inappropriate religious display.  What do you think they will say about a judge literally wrapping himself in the ten commandments?  This isn’t an issue of freedom of expression, because while the judge is presiding in the courtroom he is an extension of the government and, like a school teacher, is prevented from proselytizing, even non-verbally.

It only becomes interesting, if the robe is personal property, and was purchased by him or given to him, rather than being purchased by the state.  If the judge is smart, a group of kids that he coached little league for will have purchased the robe, and his wife will have painstakingly hand embroidered it for months, and then had the kids give it to him as a birthday present.  The dollar value is low, sentimental value is high, and you get little kids and the wife that made them milk and cookies on the record on his behalf.  What a wonderful fact pattern that would be.

Regards,

Spocko, and Mrs Spocko too- hear, hear.  These laws are obviously intended to overawe, threaten, and spook a superstitious folk into toeing the line.  And they worked- look how long Judaism and Christianty have survived.  Consciously and/or unconsciously derived, the laws that evolve under the mantle of religion are those that successfully keep the religion going, one way or another.

Doesn’t mean we should regard them as anything other than interesting cultural relicts, much less as the Word of God.  It’s incredible that we still have wackos who believe them in this day and age.  Worse, we have people who violate their public trust by trying to promulgate these violent superstitions in the courts and the schools, in violation of the law.

McKathan 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.�?

So when can we expect McKathan to start sentencing adulterers to being stoned to death?

consi said: The dollar value is low, sentimental value is high, and you get little kids and the wife that made them milk and cookies on the record on his behalf.  What a wonderful fact pattern that would be. smile

Such a story might induce warm fuzzy feelings, but it should have no bearing on the decision as to whether it is permissible for a judge to so prominently display a religious text in a courtroom.  Unfortunately, it might, given the current pro-Christian atmosphere in American public life.

I’m not worried about this nimrod is in Alabama. This is the wonderful state--right next to the one I live in--whose citizens voted to keep thier state income taxes at disportionally high rates so the few wealthy interests would’nt be too duly overtaxed. These people would vote for a rutabaga if it said it was a Christian and had the 10 commandents tattoed on it ass( or what passes for a ass on a rutabaga). Alabama is hardly a trendsetter state. If it has become one then we had all better start worrying.

I hope this judge doesn’t come and stone me for working on Sunday!

Technically the sabbath is the last day of the week, the day God was finished with creation. That would be Saturday, as the week runs Sunday to Saturday, not Monday to Sunday. So there would probably be a whole lot of stoning going on.

kill != murder

A question of semantics. If satan does exist then he would be laughing his ass off at all the Christians who think they know when killing is right or wrong.

I feel sorry for the people out there who need the bible to guide their lives, but only insofar as it upholds the values and beliefs they already have.

It is amazing the nukber of inconsistencies that exist from New to Old Testament, and how Christians would have us believe they are really the same book. I believe right in the beatitudes Jesus makes a statement about how people have been living their lives inapropriately by following the code of the old testament and then he calls on them to follow the beatitudes. It is amazing how people can call themselves Christians (followers of Christ) when in reality they reject his own beliefs.

Just stopping in to say hello and to congratulate you on your recent nomination at the BoB Weblog Awards 2004.

I completely missed this among all the other hubabaloo in this thread. Thanks! I didn’t realize I’d been nominated until I noticed a spike in traffic from the BoB site. I would’ve thought I was too big to participate, but I appreciate the nod just the same.

OK, I’ll stop dragging the thread off-topic now.

Les- go ahead, drag all you like- it’s your site.  Abuse your power.  Harp on and on and on about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic- see if we care.

Uh, what were we talking about, anyways?

It only becomes interesting, if the robe is personal property, and was purchased by him or given to him, rather than being purchased by the state.

This is not relevant to the argument.  It doesn’t matter if his robes are made from the Shroud of Turin and were embroidered by the Virgin Mary herself.  While he is sitting on the bench he is acting as an agent of the government.  As an agent of the government he is not allowed to proselytize.  If he is required to purchase the robes for his job, he can deduct the purchase from his taxes as a job related expense. 

If the judge is smart, a group of kids that he coached little league for will have purchased the robe, and his wife will have painstakingly hand embroidered it for months, and then had the kids give it to him as a birthday present.  The dollar value is low, sentimental value is high, and you get little kids and the wife that made them milk and cookies on the record on his behalf.  What a wonderful fact pattern that would be.

Again it would be irrelevant.  If he wants to wear this robe around his house, more power to him.  It does not belong in a courtroom and I await the inevitable decision from the higher court on this issue.

quasar beamed: It doesn’t matter if his robes are made from the Shroud of Turin and were embroidered by the Virgin Mary herself.

Hmmm.  Since the Shroud of Turin was most likely created in the 14th century,
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html
that would mean that Mary was alive then too, thus surpassing Methuselah as the longevity champ!  Maybe she’s still alive!

While he is sitting on the bench he is acting as an agent of the government.  As an agent of the government he is not allowed to proselytize. - Quasar

Not all religious expression is proselytization.  A person does not, when acting as an agent of the state, cease to have rights of his own.  Ten commandments adorning state-owned property is clearly wrong.  But the man is not state-owned property. 

I for one am just as glad to have his prejudices out in the open.  It’s best if everyone knows how he feels. Also, many judges have proven capable of rendering verdicts that, while contrary to their own beliefs, are supportable in law.

The embroidered robe gives us a chance to look for personal beliefs embedded in his verdicts.

Sort of like wearing a Scarlet “C” for Christian signifying that yes I am stupid and gullible enough to believe the unbelievable without a shred of evidence so watch me carefully as my decisions can largely be based on faith as Im likely to throw reason & logic right out the window.

To me at least this is without question a solid reason to disbar any Judge as his whole job, his ONLY job is to make decisions based on facts & rule of law while remaining as unbiased as possible.

He has just shown contempt for ALL of the above, faith over facts, biblical dogma over constitutional law, & obviously Bias based on religious delusions.

I have to admit that your militancy surprises me at times, Nunya. While I do feel this fellow’s robes are crossing the line, I still feel his fitness as a judge should be based on his record and not presumptions on how much he’s bought into a particular religious viewpoint. Given some of his statements there’s definitely reason to be concerned, but the fact that he parades around in his TC robe alone is no basis to disbar him.

Les,

Given some of his statements there’s definitely reason to be concerned, but the fact that he parades around in his TC robe alone is no basis to disbar him.

That’s true, but the fact that he wore the 10 commandments on his robe demonstrates some lack of judgment.  He should have been aware that doing something like that would lead to some conflict.  If he didn’t it demonstrates a lack of foresight and consideration.  If he did realize that there would be a public outcry but wore the robes anyways it demonstrates that he’s a jerk.  I think that a lack of judgment and a excess of general jerkiness are both qualities that aren’t conducive to being a good judge.

Certainly is to me, shows zero respect for his position, zero respect for the law.

Also any Judge that even remotely shows signs of being like a Roy Moore clone needs to be disbarred immediately, CYA git tha fuck out and dont let the bible hit you in the ass.

McKathan 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.�?

Its not “just” wearing the robe, this statement right here tells you all you need to know.
If he honestly believes this statement, then he has absolutely no business being responsible for life or death decisions, period.

The TC’s do NOT represent the truth, they represent religious dogma professed by Christians that was stolen from older Paganism namely the 42 Admonitions of Ma’at they also can not help a judge know right from wrong, that is clearly the statement of a religious fanatic that has lost what little reasoning & logical mind he may have possessed.

Such “thinking” as this is what we were faced with during the Salem Witch trials, this type of Bias is why we have laws discriminating against innocent human beings for no other reason than simply their sexual preference.

I have ZERO tolerance for such insanity in Federal & state institutions.
There is far too much riding on the decision’s of these people to allow any Judge to set on a bench knowing full well they do not reside in the world of Factual Reality.

Little More information on this nutcase.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/110310570714540.xml

“Truth is an absolute value,” McKathan said, “and you can’t divorce the law from the truth. I feel we must resist the modern attempts to discount the truth.”

“I believe that there is such as thing as absolute truth,” he remarked. “All of Western civilization for 2,000 years has been built on scriptural truth. Now, some want to separate the law from the truth it was built on, and they have absolutely nothing to replace it with.
“I see the Ten Commandments as a connection to the truth,” he said. “The scriptural truth is the underlying foundation for the law. It has sustained Western civilization for centuries. Without the truth, you can throw the law away.”

“If there’s no truth in the law, you can’t get justice.”

“As in Moore’s case, the issue here is not the merits of the Ten Commandments,” the newspaper said. “The issue is the glaring impropriety of a judge, presiding in a system dedicated to fair and impartial treatment under the laws of the state and nation of all who face charges before it, injecting a set of religious beliefs into that system. It’s not about the Ten Commandments; the issue would be the same if McKathan’s embroidered words were those of the Koran or the scriptures of any faith.”

This Judge obviously has no understanding of factual reality, he is clearly delusional and has no business whatsoever being responsible for life or death judgements.

Not all religious expression is proselytization.  A person does not, when acting as an agent of the state, cease to have rights of his own.  Ten commandments adorning state-owned property is clearly wrong.  But the man is not state-owned property.

When a person is placed in a position of authority, whether it be a school teacher, judge, a police officer, etc… the rights of that person, when they are acting as an arm of the government, must be balanced against the rights of those they wield authority over.  Defendents are like school children, neither can choose who they stand before, and both are required by law to appear before them.  They are powerless in those environments, so *every* effort must be made to make sure that the authority figure doesn’t abuse their power.  I have no objection to anyone wearing a small cross or other symbol of their faith, but I strongly object to a judge’s robes bearing the ten commandments.  I would also object to a school teacher wearing a shawl with “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger” embroidered on it, or a police officer wearing a button that states “God is Dead”.  I don’t think that it is too much to ask for these government agents make every effort to appear unbiased while working.