Eh… this is kind of nothing. Jurists quote religious texts all the time. Judge Ho–the topic of the article–doesn’t quote the Bible in a particularly eloquent fashion, but he’s far from the first US judge to use a biblical quote to make a point.
And yes, they quote the Quran too–just not as much since not as many of them are familiar with it. Law is a reasoning profession, and people who practice it like finding analogies and drawing distinctions. If they see that a set of facts is like or unlike something from ancient history, they’re likely to bring it up. They’ll bring up song lyrics, mythology, popular proverbs, ancient legal texts, moral fables–anything with any reasoning or legal thinking in it.
Trump appointees are deserving of criticism for horrible jurisprudence, terrible judgment and insight, and piss-poor qualifications. There are plenty of things to hate about lots of them, but “they quote the Bible sometimes” isn’t one.
Just because a thing is common doesn’t make it correct, or even harmless. It just makes it common.
Our legal system is not based on religious belief, and it’s a reflection of poor judgment to quote meaningless and legally-irrelevant texts.
Would you respect a judge that quotes Harry Potter in official documents on a regular basis? It’s unprofessional, and it suggests a poor decision-making process which produces the actual harm.
Would you respect a judge that quotes Harry Potter in official documents on a regular basis?
YES! If the judge used the Harry Potter quotes to advance sound legal reasoning, I’d consider it a potentially clever and humorous way to inject some levity into something that’s otherwise likely mundane and dry. Also I guarantee you a judge has quoted those books in opinions, along with every other popular piece of literature.
I’m sorry to remind everybody incensed here, but the professionals in the profession get to decide what is and is not professional, and the legal profession has a long history of quoting material that’s non-germane. You can be upset about it if you want, but we’re fortunate that judges explain their reasoning at all.
Quoting a book you don’t like doesn’t make a decision bad. A decision is bad if it’s wrong on the law, and as I think everybody in this thread knows, the Bible isn’t the law of the land! Quoting non-law in order to bolster a line of reasoning isn’t good, bad, harmful, or harmless by itself, because the reasoning is the important thing. The Bible has been used to stand for many bad positions–but if it hadn’t been, those positions would still have been bad!
While you lot are pulling out your pitchforks because a judge quoted the Bible for the billionth time in the last 200 years, did any of you even bother to find out what the decisions actually were?
It’s also worth noting that the article attributes the Separation of Church and State to James Madison’s interpretation of the Bible, but never raises an issue with this fact as it did with more recent biblical analogies.
I think you make some good points. Ultimately I think that religious reasoning should be avoided in governing as much as possible, but given the fact that the Bible is nothing more than a book, there is no reason that it cannot be evoked by a judge so long as it is clear that it is being used to help explain the logic of the decision, not that the biblical text is leading the judge’s position.
Even as an Atheist I have found myself quoting Bible stories. They aren’t all dogmatic.
You say that like the fact that America’s long history of religious tyranny isn’t a problem. Like yeah I know people in the past have used religion to justify their horrendous and monstrous rulings. Yeah I know the Bible was used to help commit the genocide of the native peoples. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify slavery. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify murdering striking workers. Yeah I knew the Bible was used to brutalize and subjugate women. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify the extermination of the handicapped. Etc… However, I don’t give a fuck about that because the Bible is nonsense written by a bunch of Bronze Age goat fuckers. I don’t want it shaping my life in any way whatsoever.
They quote the Bible in the context of a court ruling implicitly backed by the full force of the judicial branch, unless and until a successful appeal is made.
There is no context in which including religious references in US court decisions is acceptable, and that’s specifically because of the Establishment Clause:
The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion, and by interpretation making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone with more than a few brain cells that it’s intended to apply broadly to the government in general.
But of course, the “originalists” love selectively interpreting parts of statements to be the the statement in entirety (in the context of the particular issue they’re trying to opine judicially upon). Which directly implies an absurd level of cognitive dissonance, considering how much those very same judges enjoy bitching about “liberal judicial activism”. They’re 100% ok with judicial activism… as long as it’s not liberal.
Eh… this is kind of nothing. Jurists quote religious texts all the time. Judge Ho–the topic of the article–doesn’t quote the Bible in a particularly eloquent fashion, but he’s far from the first US judge to use a biblical quote to make a point.
And yes, they quote the Quran too–just not as much since not as many of them are familiar with it. Law is a reasoning profession, and people who practice it like finding analogies and drawing distinctions. If they see that a set of facts is like or unlike something from ancient history, they’re likely to bring it up. They’ll bring up song lyrics, mythology, popular proverbs, ancient legal texts, moral fables–anything with any reasoning or legal thinking in it.
Trump appointees are deserving of criticism for horrible jurisprudence, terrible judgment and insight, and piss-poor qualifications. There are plenty of things to hate about lots of them, but “they quote the Bible sometimes” isn’t one.
Appreciate the reasoned response. It was my thought in reading the article as well too.
Just because a thing is common doesn’t make it correct, or even harmless. It just makes it common.
Our legal system is not based on religious belief, and it’s a reflection of poor judgment to quote meaningless and legally-irrelevant texts.
Would you respect a judge that quotes Harry Potter in official documents on a regular basis? It’s unprofessional, and it suggests a poor decision-making process which produces the actual harm.
YES! If the judge used the Harry Potter quotes to advance sound legal reasoning, I’d consider it a potentially clever and humorous way to inject some levity into something that’s otherwise likely mundane and dry. Also I guarantee you a judge has quoted those books in opinions, along with every other popular piece of literature.
I’m sorry to remind everybody incensed here, but the professionals in the profession get to decide what is and is not professional, and the legal profession has a long history of quoting material that’s non-germane. You can be upset about it if you want, but we’re fortunate that judges explain their reasoning at all.
Quoting a book you don’t like doesn’t make a decision bad. A decision is bad if it’s wrong on the law, and as I think everybody in this thread knows, the Bible isn’t the law of the land! Quoting non-law in order to bolster a line of reasoning isn’t good, bad, harmful, or harmless by itself, because the reasoning is the important thing. The Bible has been used to stand for many bad positions–but if it hadn’t been, those positions would still have been bad!
While you lot are pulling out your pitchforks because a judge quoted the Bible for the billionth time in the last 200 years, did any of you even bother to find out what the decisions actually were?
It’s also worth noting that the article attributes the Separation of Church and State to James Madison’s interpretation of the Bible, but never raises an issue with this fact as it did with more recent biblical analogies.
I think you make some good points. Ultimately I think that religious reasoning should be avoided in governing as much as possible, but given the fact that the Bible is nothing more than a book, there is no reason that it cannot be evoked by a judge so long as it is clear that it is being used to help explain the logic of the decision, not that the biblical text is leading the judge’s position.
Even as an Atheist I have found myself quoting Bible stories. They aren’t all dogmatic.
Good points.
You say that like the fact that America’s long history of religious tyranny isn’t a problem. Like yeah I know people in the past have used religion to justify their horrendous and monstrous rulings. Yeah I know the Bible was used to help commit the genocide of the native peoples. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify slavery. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify murdering striking workers. Yeah I knew the Bible was used to brutalize and subjugate women. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify the extermination of the handicapped. Etc… However, I don’t give a fuck about that because the Bible is nonsense written by a bunch of Bronze Age goat fuckers. I don’t want it shaping my life in any way whatsoever.
Not what any of this is about, but okay.
That’s exactly what this is about.
They quote the Bible in the context of a court ruling implicitly backed by the full force of the judicial branch, unless and until a successful appeal is made.
There is no context in which including religious references in US court decisions is acceptable, and that’s specifically because of the Establishment Clause:
Emphasis mine.
Is there a similar limitation placed on the judiciary?
It’s pretty obvious to anyone with more than a few brain cells that it’s intended to apply broadly to the government in general.
But of course, the “originalists” love selectively interpreting parts of statements to be the the statement in entirety (in the context of the particular issue they’re trying to opine judicially upon). Which directly implies an absurd level of cognitive dissonance, considering how much those very same judges enjoy bitching about “liberal judicial activism”. They’re 100% ok with judicial activism… as long as it’s not liberal.