OK, so at first I was going to rant about the idiocy of his defense that the 10 Commandments on his judicial robe "would not be in anybody’s face." But after further reflection, I’ve concluded that Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan of southern Alabama is well within his rights to wear that robe if he wishes to. There’s no significant difference that I can determine between his wearing a robe embroidered with the religious text (see image here) and a Jewish judge wearing a yarmulke.
I realize that a yarmulke has much more tradition behind it than a 10C robe, but such "traditions" are created by men, not God. There is a differene in precedent in that the yarmulke predates the US courts system and there are few, if any, Christians who currently wear garments with the 10 Commandments on them for "religious reasons," but again, who’s to say he’s not starting a trend that the rest of the Christian community will embrace?
The one distinction I can’t get past, however, is that I whereas a Jewish judge’s yarmulke may suggest/remind folks of a set of guiding principles and beliefs, they are not spelled out in so many words for defendants or jurors to read during trial. I can imagine the Alabama judge actually pointing to his shoulder for emphasis while rendering a verdict. Also, as a Christian, I do find the gesture intentionally provacative, which doesn’t make me trust the judge’s temperment at all.
Let’s hope he’s equally tolerant of a lawyer coming befroe him with a three piece Bhagavad Gita suit on. /snark>
So, which version of the Commandments will he be wearing? The Jewish? Protestant? Catholic?
Can Mexican-American judges wear a giant embroidered Virgin of Guadeloupe on the back of their robes, too?
Can committed Aryan Nations judges put a snappy red armband on their judicial robes, maybe with a visually striking hooked black cross in the middle?
This seems innocuous at first but one imagines the implications of it haven’t occurred to the good justice.
Isn’t the traditional reason that a judge wears black robes to empasize the stark severity of his duties to himself and to avoid distracting attention from the case? I suspect adding ornamentation of any kind detracts from that concept.
H’mmm. Wasn’t this subject debated when Rhenquist sewed those golden braids onto his sleeves? Or was that resolved as “He’s the Chief Justice; he can do what he wants”?
I’m all for the Judge wearing the 10 C’s on his robe. Why? Because it’s sure grounds for reversal at the appellate level, esp. if the Defendant happens not to be a member of whatever sect came up with the version of the 10 C’s the Judge is wearing.
I don’t think you could come up with a better example of “Unconstititionally coercive and/or intimidating use of religious symbology in a governmental setting” if you tried.
Nothing will get that bit of micro-theocracy thrown out faster than criminal defense attorneys’ using it to benefit their clients.
I agree in principle stickler that this opens a can of worms, and actually trust most judges to avoid following in his footsteps for that very reason, but as I was considering my personal objection to his wearing this garment I couldn’t come up with reasons that convinced me it was wrong that couldn’t be seen as infringing on his rights.
From the Fox News story:
If he can’t divorce the laws of man from “Thou shalt have no other god besides me”, then he should be wearing a preacher’s robe, not a judge’s. Why do these news stories always talk about the commandments but never actually get around to discussing their content? The commandments prohibit worshipping any god but the god of the Israelites (there goes freedom of religion), depictions of god and angels (there goes the first amendment, particularly for the Catholic Church and Precious Moments)), dishonoring your father and mother (testimony in child abuse cases just got even more difficult), and making plans to aquire your neighbor’s property (bye bye, real estate industry). And this is the foundation of our nation’s laws how, exactly? Because it, like pretty much EVERY OTHER SYSTEM OF LAW, prohibits murder and theft (or, in some versions, kidnapping)? At the risk of sounding like that nitwit John Stossel, give me a break!
1. As a blogger I certainly have the right to mock the judge for being such a putz. Mock, Mock, Mock.
2. His employer likely won’t be thrilled. The justice system in Alabama has recently been held up for public ridicule because of the Graven Image (the rock with a version of the 10 Cs on it). The judge’s free exercise claim is likely to conflict with his employer’s desire that the justice system appear impartial. Consider how a Jew or Muslim might feel in that court if the opposing party were an evangelical Christian.
3. The court of appeals also likely won’t be amused. Appearance of impartiality and all that. Having a judge create reversible error simply by getting dressed will lead to extra work for the appeals court.
Francis
What a major-league dork.
Another reason I wish there was a flourishing Satanist church in America – it would clarify all these issues for fundamentalist Christians.
Not sure what you’re talking about, rilkefan. I’ve got toilet paper that’s got the Ten Commandments quilted into it, so I get that daily reminder where my morals come from. Except for when I’m not getting enough fiber, but that’s getting into don’t-ask-don’t-tell territory.
fdl,
Consider how a Jew or Muslim might feel in that court if the opposing party were an evangelical Christian.
So if, say, Jews were a 90% majority in this country and had a somewhat oppressive evangelical tradition, would you object to a Jewish judge’s wearing a yarmulke on the grounds that it would be a hostile message to those of other faiths?
What a major-league dork.
That was my first impression.
OK, so following up on my last comment in the post, that this seems clearly intended to be provacative to me, because even though I was raised to believe in the 10 Commandments I was also raised to believe America is a country where we respects other peoples’ rights to worship differently and the government, courts included, serves all of them, can this issue be reframed?
I mean, so long as the Moore’s and McKathan’s frame it as freedom of religious expression or a sincere appreciation for what they see as the undeniable foundation of our legal system, it’s too easy for them to muddy the waters here (and you’ll never convince me they’re not doing it to advance their agendas/careers, which soils the reputation of their profession).
Isn’t there a much simpler argument against acting out like this? Perhaps the “major-league dork” argument? You can be kicked off the bench for being too dorky to be seen as wise or impartial? Are there not some basic professional standards for judges this sort of thing violates?
There are other distinctions between the wearing of the Ten Commandments and the wearing of the yarmulke.
Firstly, the wearing of the yarmulke is a religious requirement for many Jews, whereas there is no Christian denomination that I know of that requires the Decalogue to be embroidered in golden threads on judicial attire. As such, the wearing of the commandments cannot be but a provocation or an ostensible display of bias.
Secondly, it cannot be ignored that Christianity, unlike Judaism since the disputes between Hillel and Shammai, is a proselytizing religion. The alliance between the throne and the pulpit that began with Constantine and was renewed by Luther called for the sort of religious intromissions that we’ve witnessed in Alabama. Not that all Christianity is of this sort–much of Catholic Thomism is not, as aren’t the more liberal protestant denominations–but the “Christian nation” faction clearly is. The wearing of the yarmulke, by contrast, does not imply the desire to use the judicial bench to impose Judaism on the American legal system.
Finally, the stripes on Rehnquist’s robe are also a different matter. They are tacky and pretentious, but they carry a distinctly judicial meaning. As the story goes, Rehnquist had them sown on the robe after seeing a picture of William Blackstone with what appeared to be similar stripes on the sleeves of his garment.
Shameless mythologizing? Perhaps, but not of the sort that gets you in trouble with the Constitution.
I’d go with that, Edward, but I’m inclined toward taking the easy route. I think this is right up there with hawking Amway from the bench. Maybe not illegal, but certainly undignified, and absolutely guaranteed to distract from the work at hand, which, in case he’s forgotten, is the dispensation of justice.
“Not sure what you’re talking about, rilkefan. I’ve got toilet paper that’s got the Ten Commandments quilted into it, so I get that daily reminder where my morals come from. Except for when I’m not getting enough fiber, but that’s getting into don’t-ask-don’t-tell territory.”
Uhh, I think you’re already well into that territory. My attempted point was: it’s too bad no one from the Church of Saint Judas Iscariot has issued a statement welcoming the judge’s garment as an expression of religious freedom and announcing that Satanist judges will begin wearing robes adorned with pentagrams and goats’ heads and the words of the Black Mass.
the wearing of the yarmulke is a religious requirement for many Jews, whereas there is no Christian denomination that I know of that requires the Decalogue to be embroidered in golden threads on judicial attire
Not yet, anyway. I think that it’s important to not get hooked up on that point here, though, because religious requirements evolve, and if this is the best defense against the practice, give a rouge reverend two weeks before he declares it a “requirement.”
But that’s kind of my point with this; that is, there’s a incongruity between the contemporary introduction of 10C texts in courtrooms that betrays the most convincing rationale for introducing them: the argument that they form the traditional foundation of our laws.
In other words, these judges are actually breaking with the current tradition of not displaying the 10Cs in a court room supposedly to emphasize another tradition, meaning they’re being selectively traditional, revealing, as Victor puts so well that “the wearing of the commandments cannot be but a provocation or an ostensible display of bias.”
Victor said:
The wearing of the yarmulke, by contrast, does not imply the desire to use the judicial bench to impose Judaism on the American legal system.
I have to disagree. Wearing a religious symbol pretty much proclaims your adherence to that religious system and indicates you take it sufficiently seriously to wear a symbol of it at work. And to me it indicates your judicial decisions are likely going to be influenced by your religious beliefs. Maybe not so much as Mr. Wear the Ten Commandments, but it’s a matter of degree, not fundamental difference of type.
That being said, I am inclined to prefer that if we’re going to put our judges in ceremonial outfits, that they all be required to wear a consistent uniform, rather than having people decorate them with their favorite legal excuses.
If I were in that courtroom I would totally whip out a giant golden calf and worship it in his face.
If its free speech (or free exercise of religion — more of a stretch) to adorn your robe with religious messages, why not go whole hog? Add a Bush promo, or advertise viagra. Sounds like an unexploited ad opportunity for the State!! Maybe we can have businesses sponsor judges like those roadside cleanup programs.
If you allow the 10C, but not these others, are you discriminating improperly based on content? Sounds like an absurd issue to me.
There are rules about what judges can wear on the bench — I have no idea what those rules are in Alabama. Using your robe like a billboard is wrong, period. If there is not a rule, its time to pass one now.
As for the stylistic quality of the robes, two humorous side notes. What judges wear under the robes is sometimes a scream (outrageous plaid golf outfits or more typically, jeans or other scruffy clothes). Or one judge referring to her robe as putting on the “shower curtain.”
What judges wear under the robes is sometimes a scream (outrageous plaid golf outfits or more typically, jeans or other scruffy clothes).
Which is why I sometimes wish scholars still wore robes.
There doesn’t seem to be any good reason to allow a judge to wear the 10 commandments on his (and I bet you very few women would try this out) robe. Freedom of speech is regularly restricted in professional circumstances. (“Oh, but don’t I have a right to wear a t-shirt proclaiming my personal belief that all adulterers and gays should be stoned to my banking job?”)
A yarmulke is a fairly neutral statement of identity, while the ten commandments embroidered on your judicial robes is clearly a statement of position–and an unusual one at that. (And CaseyL pointed out above that an appelate court could murder a decision on the grounds of this alone.)
But this leads me to wonder: are there many (or any) judges who wear religious emblems that would indicate more specific points of view? Mormons would be invisible (our holy garments are underwear, handily enough); Quakers would be indistinguishable; Buddhists can come in all kinds of forms. Are there any veil-wearing female Muslim judges? Any beard-n’-hat-wearing Chasidic judges?
Okay, the net ate my post. But the general points were as follows.
1. I would love to be able to swoop on a robe to teach. That would really cut down on “professional-looking clothing” costs.
2. Unless people can come up with other religious paraphenalia worn by actual, current judges that really expresses a specific point of view on legal matters, like Chasidic hats and beards or Muslim veils, this judge’s “expression” of his beliefs comes off as a naked power-ploy that will be stomped on by appelate courts, assuming that a good lawyer is presenting the case.
Okay, let’s see if this works.
It’s a DUI case. So, while I still think an appeal would reverse on the grounds of religious intimidation, it’s not entirely on point. I mean, which commandment says ‘Thou shalt not drive while intoxicated’?
Family Law would be a more interesting arena for testing this. Esp. if the issue is a non-gay parent asking that custody be refused to a gay parent on the grounds of homosexuality. What would be particularly interesting about that is, there are no commandments condemning homosexuality. In fact, you could make a case that the commandment about honoring thy mother and father – which could be used as a basis for granting custody – supercedes Leviticus.
Oh, this could be ever so delicious. Imagine a debate over which Biblical precepts trump one another: do the Commandments trump Leviticus? Do the Beattitudes trump the Commandments? Plus you’ve got the whole Old v. New Testament issue: Does “Turn the other cheek” outweigh “Blot out thy enemies unto the 10th generation”?
I will rub my hands together in glee on the day a tyrannical fundie dad comes to court on murder charges, and defend his right to kill his disobedient daughter – on the grounds that Leviticus mandates it. The nation will be spellbound as its judicial system becomes a forum to debate the primacy of this or that liturgical source.
It strikes me that the most obvious difference between a yarmulke and the robe here (which is implicit in some of these posts) is that the yarmulke is part of that person’s attire, and then the person dons the judicial robes (which I think are symbolically meant to represent the role of the judge as an independent, neutral arbiter of the law).
Thus, I don’t think anyone would have an objection to a judge who wore earrings or a pendant in the shape of a cross in the courtroom (unless they were very distracting or the issue was particularly relevant to the case). But here the judge is taking the symbol of the judicial function (and neutrality) and making it serve a sectarian purpose, which is completely inappropriate.
But the real reason I delurked on this post is to point out that Victor was far too generous to Rehnquist on the stripes. Rehnquist added the stripes after seeing similar stripes on the costume of the lord chancellor in a production of the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta Iolanthe. You can’t make this stuff up.
That would be totally sweet. What would be even more awesome is if you flipped out and totally cut off his head.
I’d just start flying.
The judge should honor not only our Christian tradition, but also whatever we owe to the ancient Greeks, particularly the Socratic method.
I suggest he could start by ceremoniously quaffing a cup of hemlock at the beginning of his next session. I hear dioxin is effective, too, but takes a while to achieve its goal.
I think Doh got it right. The robes represent the institution, just like a military uniform does.
Edward: There is no issue of infringing on his rights.
He’s a JUDGE. He has obligations, due to his position, that rule out his rights to free expression. There are a great many things that he cannot say because of the rules that apply to the courtroom. Ditto for what he wears.
And this bit of theocracy-flaunting demonstrates a complete lack of judicial temperament.
Thanks Nell,
I’m beginning to see that. I do think, though, having gone rounds with religious people who feel very strongly about this, that some very formal objection, completely circumventing the “foundation of our legal system” or “religious expression” arguments is needed here. I believe what you’ve written is true and it should convince most people, but how to reach those who feel he’s being denied his rights to practice his religion?
I believe what you’ve written is true and it should convince most people, but how to reach those who feel he’s being denied his rights to practice his religion?
Who are those people? If they’re run-of-the-mill theocrats and Kristians with a persecution complex, I’m through with “reaching” them.
If they’re sincerely concerned about a person in a powerful, prestigious position being denied his right to practice his religion WHILE ON THE JOB, then they need to sit down and sincerely think about it a little. Or pray on it.