by hilzoy
There are some difficult questions about how to draw the line separating church from state. This (h/t Carpetbagger), however, is not one of them:
“A judge who made headlines four years ago by wearing the Ten Commandments embroidered on his judicial robe is facing a complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union over a prayer he led in February in a Monroe County courtroom. (…)
At a status conference before the judge in February, McKathan told the 100 people attending the hearing that he was not afraid to call on the name of Jesus Christ, witnesses said, and ordered all in attendance to join hands and pray. (…)
Witnesses said the judge prayed aloud for several minutes and dropped to his knees.”
If you actually check the complaint (pdf), the parties to the suit were all members of a church whose financial records were at issue, and the judge seems to have been leading them in prayer in the hopes that it might produce some Christian spirit of compromise and conciliation. The problem with what he did, in other words, was not that he was making illegitimate assumptions about their religious views, or using his power to force them to pray to a God they might well not have believed in. Nor was it simply that a judge ought not to make such assumptions at all, since the risks of forcing someone to profess a faith she does not hold outweigh any possible benefits; or that any action that gives the impression that the government as a whole supports a particular religion should be avoided at all costs; or that people should not order other people to pray with the authority of the state behind them. It’s not even this extraordinary statement (from the complaint):
“Judge McKathan stated that at this status conference he was acting as a religious leader, but that if they did not resolve the matter in church, all parties would have to return to court and he would act as a judge.”
Here’s how the people who complained saw it:
“”His conduct wasn’t what the people needed,” Williams said. “We had actual church service more or less, but got no legal progress. That’s why we have separation of church and state.”
Williams said if McKathan had held an actual hearing, the church rift might have been resolved long ago.”
They did not come before a judge seeking pastoral counsel. They came before a judge seeking, well, a judge. They didn’t want to possibly return to court and have their judge “act as a judge”; they wanted him to act like a judge from the outset. They had every right to expect to find a judge, rather than a “religious leader”, presiding over their courtroom. Judge McKathan disappointed them.
I imagine some people will construe this as a case pitting Christianity against secularism. They will be wrong. There is nothing Christian about failing to do your job.
Some Christians really do not like it when other Christians seem to know what’s best for all Christains.
well put, Hilzoy
I imagine some people will construe this as a case pitting Christianity against secularism.
I think it is a case of that, looked at with a long lens. The reason this judge took this action is because he’s been allowed to hold that position even though his attitudes toward the separation between church and state are indefensible. Had he been removed from his post, another judge, whether he/she was a christian or not, would have heard the case, and the parties might have gotten something accomplished. But it didn’t happen because we give far too much deference to people who use religious belief as an excuse for their conduct, even when it’s inappropriate.
The judge has no boundaries.
His behavior was no less inappropriate than if he had laid his hands on one of the parties in an intimate way.
The history of low-brow Christianity in America over the past 35 years and its constant stepping over the line separating religion from the State will be viewed at some future, saner time as inappropriate spiritual fondling.
These objections are silly. I have no doubt that there would have been no similar objections if the judge had conducted a Scientological audit of the parties, instead, or conducted a Muslim ritual, or engaged in vodun. You people just hate Christianity and religious freedom.
I wouldn’t say I hate Christianity, Gary. I don’t care enough about it to muster up actual hatred. There are a fair number of Christians, however, that I’ve managed that feat with.
I think Gary Farber is being sarcastic. No human could possibly be that idiotic. Right Gary?
Wait. Waitwaitwait. He did this… to a group of CHRISTIANS… and even THEY were upset enough about his behavior to file a complaint about it???
“No human could possibly be that idiotic. Right Gary?”
Yeah, it’s my fanatic Christian evangelism that made me write that. Spot on.
Interestingly, you need to read both this post and the one in TCR — particularly the comments, including from two people who know the judge personally to put together the story. Rather than try, I suggest you do so.
PaulW, what’s surprising about that? Are you under the impression that all Christians are identical, or that none of them believe in separation of church and state?
Is anyone watching the Saddleback thing? I’m really uncomfortable with the idea of giving Rick Warren this sort of power in our presidential election.
Not surprisingly, the Rick Warren event is turning into a McCain pep rally, with McCain doing his stump speech and POW anecdotes. I’m only glad it’s competing with the Olympics.
KCinDC,
My wife and I are watching the Warren forum together and, I must say, we are finding this more informative than any debate we’ve seen in the past year.
I know this isn’t answering the heart of your question, and I’m typing fast in order to get back to the TV, but giving credit where credit is due: (1) Warren asks impressively succinct questions and (2) He manages to keep the candidates on point and not going into their stump speeches.
In the end, I suppose that is more of an indictment of the Brian Williams TV types who anchor today’s debates as much as it is a tip of the hat to Warren.
Real quick:
Obama was really impressive. Fresh off his vaction, he seemed at ease and quite comfortable in this setting.
That said, I was looking forward to comparing the young, vital, commanding senator to McCain.
Frankly, I guess I was looking forward to McCain falling on his face — I wish I could have said that more delicately.
But I must admit: McCain, in his own right, was just as impressive and, as usual, used humor to his advantage. He was also more specific with his answers than Obama, who still seems to answer questions in general terms.
Many of McCain’s answers, I imagine, would be palatable to Independents — the audience the two candidates need to win over in order to win the White House.
Except:
And – not that I was going to vote for him anyway – but McCain totally lost me in regard to his answer to the Supreme Court’s makeup.
Basically, he said he’d prefer not to have a single moderate — forget liberal — on the Supreme Court. (His later answer on abortion rights backed that up 100 percent.)
Scary.
More later, I hope.
Damn, I wanted to get back up stairs, but I just read your other comment, KC, and I see we already disagree.
As I said, I am not voting for McCain. But I see this is going to be no different than the conventional debates — Obama backers will think he “won” hands down, and McCain backers will think their man did.
Again, looking at this as how an Independent might — let’s face it, hard-line party faithful have their mind made up — I think it is probably more useful to step back and take the full measure of the man.
That said, I think it plays to McCain’s advantage to speak of his POW days. How is that any different than Obama inserting his grandmother in evey other answer these days?
I, for one, couldn’t help choke up a little bit when Senator McCain told of the Vietnamese prison guard who drew a cross in the dirt on Christmas Day.
Admitting this kind of thing and reading the New York Post might get you barred from this site. I don’t know. I am just trying to be honest.
Thank you.
Historically speaking, the danger of Christians bullying other Christians is why we have a secular government. Many, perhaps most Christians understand this.
Bedtime, I agree with you that McCain won. Turning it into a McCain pep rally is an indication of winning. He was able to do that because the audience and the questions were naturally Republican-friendly, and because Warren allowed him to wander into whatever he wanted in answering — I didn’t hear any badgering about “no stump speeches!” during the McCain half.
I understand why Obama wanted to go into hostile territory, but I think it was a mistake.
McCain wants no moderates on the Supreme Court?
No moderates?
Good, I hope the American people get immoderation good and hard this time.
I hope there aren’t any politically conservative women who get knocked up during the McCain Administration, though, as George Carlin might have asked, who would wanna screw Ann Coulter anyway, besides James Carville, who seems to be attracted to female reptiles.
I’m prochoice and anti-abortion (what’s the analogy for that position? missionary on sabbatical?) but I wanna see Republican women in shackles at the hands of a guy who if he hadn’t been in a tiger cage would have fucked his way through Southeast Asia.
“I understand why Obama wanted to go into hostile territory, but I think it was a mistake.”
Only because Obama isn’t yet willing to answer hostility with hostility.
This is where Hillary the streetfighter and her people wil become important, if Obama wants to win.
High road, schlmigh road.
The Republican Party is showing that it needs to lose AND be beaten to death.
John, Gary, and any other readers who have spent a lot of time in Colorado: how significant is it that McCain has said he wants to renegotiate the Colorado River water compact?
If Colorado were Arizona, and its water risked being taken away, it would be huge. But I haven’t spent enough time in CO to have more than an uninformed hunch.
KC,
I was writing quick, initial impressions. And you’re right: Warren didn’t scold McCain about “no stump speeches.”
I’m not entirely sure McCain won — although if you exceed expectations, I guess that’s a victory.
I’ll say this: McCain sure comes off a hell of a lot better when he is not attacking Obama. He’s been doing that for the past month and didn’t tonight.
I give Obama props for appearing before this kind of audience and I think they received him well.
(hilzoy, if you have a moment, check out the “ADD” thread — thanks)
Actually, I’m rethinking things some. Obama is never going to win over a majority of Rick Warren fans. What would be useful for him to do is to win more of them than other recent Democratic presidential candidates have, so being willing to show up for an event like this and get a friendly reception — even if it’s not the sort of reception they give a Republican — is probably a good thing.
“Only because Obama isn’t yet willing to answer hostility with hostility.
This is where Hillary the streetfighter and her people wil become important, if Obama wants to win.
High road, schlmigh road.”
Boy, John, amen!
I know this isn’t a popular notion at ObWi but that’s why I would consider Obama-Clinton a dream ticket. (And for the anti-Clinton crowd, remember that old “Godfather” thing about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.)
Alas, I don’t think that’s going to happen.
But Biden seems like a real possibilty (and not just because we’re in a picture together at this year’s Fourth of July parade).
Interesting that Biden is the first Democrat who is heading off to Georgia.
“Actually, I’m rethinking things some. Obama is never going to win over a majority of Rick Warren fans. What would be useful for him to do is to win more of them than other recent Democratic presidential candidates have, so being willing to show up for an event like this and get a friendly reception — even if it’s not the sort of reception they give a Republican — is probably a good thing.”
Indeed.
I can’t imagine John Kerry feeling at ease or giving the kind of performance that Barack Obama did tonight.
Also, I’m not sure how this type of Rick Warren audience weighs such things but Obama –not McCain — quoted from the Bible a couple times tonight.
And another thing:
Aside from revealing how hard right he would prefer to make the Supreme Court once and for all, McCain pretty much insulted half of the court.
Which did not seem very presidential.
Obama was much more tactful and thoughtful.
All in all, though, I wonder how many voters will vote on the Supreme Court when the two main issues are the flagging economy and the Iraq war.
Rethinking my rethinking, this did provide McCain with a good opportunity to display a religiosity alien to the McCain Classic of earlier years, and I think he did a good job of it. That could reassure those Rick Warren fans who might have thought McCain wasn’t really one of them and might have gone for Obama in the end as being more genuinely Christian.
Did anyone ask McCain when he planned to be baptized in his new Baptist church — the one he joined last year after being an Episcopalian for the first seventy-so years of his life?
“John, Gary, and any other readers who have spent a lot of time in Colorado: how significant is it that McCain has said he wants to renegotiate the Colorado River water compact?”
I’ll have to waffle: it’s an important issue for the rural farmers and ranchers, but they’re a smaller and smaller and smaller proportion of Colorado voters these days, who are more and more suburbanites, who are apt to pay less attention to the issue, I suspect. As well, the farmers and ranchers who might be alarmed are probably more likely to be Republicans and prone to supporting McCain anyway, and more prone to rationalize that “renegotiate” will somehow work out in their favor, I’m inclined to suspect.
And the urban Democrats and independents who now make up the majority of Colorado voters mostly won’t be voting for McCain anyway.
So I’m inclined to think it could do him some damage, and that the more that is made of it, the better, and particularly if he doesn’t come back with some more ameliorative statement, but I doubt it would be any kind of real crippling blow, nice as it would be to think toherwise.
But I have to stress that despite my living in Colorado six and a half years, and despite in the last year getting involved in the local Democratic Party and getting elected to the conventions and as precinct committeeperson (a post I naturally, sadly, had to resign when I moved to North Carolina — and before I got to accept my first bribe!) I never paid remotely as much attention to state politics as I did to national and international politics, and don’t regard myself as any kind of expert on the state’s politics, so my opinion shouldn’t be taken as worth all that much, anyway.
Certainly Salazar speaking up against what McCain said will help, but again I’d expect it mostly to be paid far more attention to by people who already won’t vote for McCain, and not so much with many solid Republicans.
Incidentally, the primary there was yesterday, and Jared Polis was effectively elected to Congress, in my former District, the 2nd, since the Republican is an absolute sure loser a district that is largely the People’s Republic Of Boulder, and this is particularly notable as Polis will be the first non-incumbent gay man elected to Congress. I actually supported his opponent, Joan Fitz-Gerald, not because Polis’ positions were bad — they’re quite good, I have few policy disagreements with him — but simply because Fitz-Gerald has a long long record of accomplishment in the legislature, working her way up to President of the State Senate, and Polis’s record is very thin, consisting of being on the Board of Education, and other minor posts, but winning because he’s a multimillionaire who spent millions of his own dollars on his campaign, and I really don’t think we need more millionaires, no matter how liberal, buying their way into Congress. He spent $5.2 million, and Fitz-Gerald, and the other candidate Will Shafroth, who never struck me as having any remote chance of winning, were only able to raise about $1.5 each, if that. Not a fair contest.
I’m sure he’ll be a good representative — and at 33, he’s apt to be around for a long time if he doesn’t screw up — but I’m sorry for Fitz-Gerald, whom I think really deserved to win more than Polis did. Oh, well. I hope Colorado hasn’t seen the last of Joan Fitz-Gerald, though I have no idea what could be open for her now, unless Mark Udall somehow manages to blow what should be a win for him in his Senate race, and JF-G is still interested six years from now, which is thin gruel for comfort.
Hilzoy, to add to what Gary wrote, Salazar and other reps from Colorado have responded that the water compact is sacrosanct.
This thing was held up for years and the States were brought to the table by first the Clinton and then the Bush Interior (Bureau of Reclamation) Feds.
The general feeling, I think, in Colorado, whether its justified or not, is that Arizona and the other downstream states basically steal Colorado’s water.
I expect tomorrow McCain (who must have insanity in his bloodline) will suggest the Republic of Georgia should receive Colorado water as well.
Heck, ranchers on the West Slope in Colorado believe Denver on the East Slope steals their water.
It’s rained the last two days straight here. Very rare for that to happen in August. But in two days the lawns in Denver will need watering.
Mine will.
On McCain’s behalf, I’m going to let the stuff run down the street.
Here’s where I meant to put some current polling in Colorado for you, Hilzoy.
A thought experiment (similar to many others I’ve considered during this campaign): Suppose the coin flip had gone differently and McCain had been first, and that Obama had arrived half an hour into the event and was not in fact in the “cone of silence” at the beginning as Warren assured us. Suppose we had only the word of the Obama campaign that Obama hadn’t heard the questions or McCain’s answers. What would the blogosphere and the media look like right now?