Religious symbols and judges

[sailor51]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

I had a conversation with a friend regarding the religious displays by judges. She claims that judges do not display religious symbols (crosses, stars of David, etc.) on their bodies just as a matter of etiquette. I am of the opinion is that wearing a religious symbol while sitting at the bench would be sanctioned by law, since this would in fact mean that a judge is endorsing a particular religion. Who is right?
Thank you.

 

[army judge]

I had a conversation with a friend regarding the religious displays by judges. She claims that judges do not display religious symbols (crosses, stars of David, etc.) on their bodies just as a matter of etiquette. I am of the opinion is that wearing a religious symbol while sitting at the bench would be sanctioned by law, since this would in fact mean that a judge is endorsing a particular religion. Who is right?
Thank you.

I've known judges that DO display emblems that some consider to be religious symbols.

In fact, the Bible is used in courtrooms all across the US for witnesses to take this oath:

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

In me view, neither of you hold an incorrect view.

Even the oath mentioned above can be varied to be an affirmation to tell the truth without reference to a deity.

In a word, the courts are accommodating to all, much the United States are to all law abiding inhabitants and immigrants.

 

[adjusterjack]

You're both wrong.

She claims that judges do not display religious symbols (crosses, stars of David, etc.) on their bodies just as a matter of etiquette

She's wrong. How would anybody know that they are wearing these symbols under their robes while they are on the bench? And off the bench, whose bloody business is it anyway?

I am of the opinion is that wearing a religious symbol while sitting at the bench would be sanctioned by law, since this would in fact mean that a judge is endorsing a particular religion.

To presume that a judge wearing a religious symbol means that he's endorsing his religion on behalf of the state is just too asinine for comment.

If you see your postman wearing a cross around his neck does that mean that the United States Postal Service is endorsing Christianity?

If your IRS tax auditor is wearing a yarmulke does that mean that the IRS endorses Judaism?

Think about how silly those presumptions (and yours) are.

 

[sailor51]

You're both wrong.

You don't seriously think that we were talking about what they wear under the robes? Let me clarify: Religious symbols on TOP of the robes.

Since we were talking judges and not postmen/woman, your second comment also misses the point.
In the courtroom, judge (NOT in private)
Now if you have something to add without being an ass, please go ahead.


She's wrong. How would anybody know that they are wearing these symbols under their robes while they are on the bench? And off the bench, whose bloody business is it anyway?



To presume that a judge wearing a religious symbol means that he's endorsing his religion on behalf of the state is just too asinine for comment.

If you see your postman wearing a cross around his neck does that mean that the United States Postal Service is endorsing Christianity?

If your IRS tax auditor is wearing a yarmulke does that mean that the IRS endorses Judaism?

Think about how silly those presumptions (and yours) are.

 

[cbg]

While I would not put it as bluntly as Jack, I agree with him in this instance.

 

[sailor51]

While I would not put it as bluntly as Jack, I agree with him in this instance.

Thanks. but Jack didn't understand, at least the first part of the argument. Displaying religious symbols on top of the robe, in my opinion, would not be acceptable. In private or under the robes, who cares.
Are you saying that a supreme court justice hearing an abortion case while openly wearing a cross over his robe would be acceptable?

 

[adjusterjack]

Are you saying that a supreme court justice hearing an abortion case while openly wearing a cross over his robe would be acceptable?

Show me a picture of a US Supreme Court judge (or any federal or state or local judge) wearing a religious symbol outside his robe and I'll give you my opinion.

Meantime, starting arguments on the internet about something that doesn't happen and isn't a real issue is the definition of internet troll.

 

[sailor51]

Show me a picture of a US Supreme Court judge (or any federal or state or local judge) wearing a religious symbol outside his robe and I'll give you my opinion.

Meantime, starting arguments on the internet about something that doesn't happen and isn't a real issue is the definition of internet troll.

It's an academic discussion. I never said it happened. Quite opposite. However, the question is why we don't have examples like that. Is it etiquette or the law?
You have the right to ignore the question. Stop with the insults. You didn't even read the question before giving an obnoxious response.

 

[adjusterjack]

However, the question is why we don't have examples like that. Is it etiquette or the law?

That's not the question you asked at the beginning of this thread but the way you phrase the current question is answered as follows.

Can't be law, must be etiquette, because:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Looks like your girlfriend is right.

 

[cbg]

I fail to understand how a judge's personal beliefs or the symbols he chooses to wear are relevant as long as his rulings are based in the law. However, if we are talking hypotheticals only, the hypothetical reason why a hypothetical judge might do anything is totally meaningless. You can make up any reason you want but until a real judge wears a real symbol over his robes and makes a real ruling, there's no real reason to say what his reasoning might have been.

Really.