I Don’t Want Jesus In My Courtroom
I was interested to hear my tiny little hometown of Slidell was in the national news last week. It appears that the mayor Ben Morris is going head-to-head with the ACLU because someone decided to put a picture of Jesus in the courthouse.
Before I get an inbox full of hatemail, let me explain. Jesus was a cool guy, sure. I get it. But part of the whole idea of democracy was a separation of church and state. Let’s ponder this for a moment; separation of CHURCH and STATE.
If you were on trial, would you want a Muslim on your jury? How about an atheist? Or better yet, a Satan worshiper? Once you open the door to religion in the courtroom, impartiality flies out the window. If I were going to trial, I would want 12 of the most even-headed, fair, moral and impartial people that my lawyer could find. If they believe in Jesus, great. If they don’t, it doesn’t hurt my feelings, just as long as they have a decent moral compass.
If you open the door for Jesus, then you have to open the door for everyone else, too. And when someone points that out, you can’t stand in front of a news camera and basically tell the rest of the world “F-you” simply because you think your God is better than everyone else’s. Maybe he is, but the fact is, HE DOESN’T BELONG THERE.
But if you ARE going to let him in, then you damn well better start charging those multi-million dollar churches tax. Because I’m sure Jesus would want his grandma to have enough money in the federal reserves to pay her Social Security check.
July 18th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I wouldn’t consider this hate mail but …
Democracy is NOT a separation of church and state. We don’t even have a Democracy, we have a Republic.
Separation of church and state was a response by those leaving England ( pre-colonialism ) so they could worship outside of a church that was state sanctioned ( e.g. The Church of England ). If you wanted to be Baptist you could be Baptist and not Anglican. BTW - the state of Rhode Island was started by people who didn’t want to be Quakers. I guess they didn’t like oatmeal.
Separation of church and state is NOT banning religious icons or symbols from court rooms. Separation of church and state is simply an absense of a state sanctioned religion and a prohibition of the government to establish a state religion.
And most of our laws are based off of either the 10 commandments or the book of Isaiah ( Jefferson nearly plagirized some things from the Bible ).
The point is, you can say we separate church and state, but in actuality, we never will because we have to base our ideas of right and wrong on something. And our country based it on Biblical authority.
~Jef
July 18th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Fair enough, Jef. I don’t disagree with the history here… but I know quite a few agnostics & atheists who have a stronger sense of right and wrong than many Christians I have encountered.
The problem I have with this is not so much the symbolism involved, but the judgment that the symbol implies. When you introduce the symbols, then you invite trouble into a place that it has no purpose being in. If you look at the crest of many state & federal seals, there is some indirect reference to God. Subtle references of the morality that our country was based upon is not an issue to me, it is indeed part of our history, and having them there is a way of preserving the history that our nation was built upon… but big honking pictures of Jesus being displayed in a prominent location cross the line. Especially when that picture is placed there in a judgmental fashion, designed to provoke those who do not agree with it’s implications.
If it were the Star of David, don’t you think some Christians would be upset?
I want MORALITY in my courtroom. I want FAIRNESS in my courtroom. I don’t think the courtroom is the place to be discussing religion. If the person who wanted to make a Christian statement wanted to express their beliefs, then they could wear a cross. Or a Jesus T-shirt. But by placing the picture out there, they were implying that everyone within that courthouse holds the same beliefs.
And that’s just not fair to those who don’t.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I hear you, Kristie. I am confronted every day with Christian symbols. Typically I don’t mind - freedom of expression and all - but I don’t want them in my system of justice or my child’s school. Free and frank discussion is a wonderful thing, but inclusion by inference in a courtroom is oppressive.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:08 am
SG,
Edge is right on the democracy bit. Let me add something else to the mix. The human experience is based on two events, intellectual development and spiritual development. Your posting seems to imply to me that you base your judgement of “bad” Christians on the fact that they are Christians when the reality is that if they were atheists (or Jews, or Muslims, or witches) they would also be “bad” atheists. It is not the fact that they are maladaptive spiritually, but that they are maladaptive intellectually and would be so regardless of their spiritual belief. Christians are hopeful that these “bad” people will walk among us and learn to re-adapt from their behaviour.
btw… a picture of the person who suffered the most injustice of betrayals placed in a courtroom should bring comfort whether or not you agree He was the Incarnate or not. He represents the fact that truth should not be taken lightly and forgiveness is the greatest gift of all. If I were guilty I would ask forgiveness - If I were innocent I would ask reflection. Jesus is both.
July 19th, 2007 at 6:12 am
“And most of our laws are based off of either the 10 commandments or the book of Isaiah ( Jefferson nearly plagirized some things from the Bible ).
The point is, you can say we separate church and state, but in actuality, we never will because we have to base our ideas of right and wrong on something. And our country based it on Biblical authority.”
Absolutely not. Wrong, wrong! Our laws are NOT based off the ten commandments. Our laws are based on good ethics, not morals - just because murder and stealing are against the law, doesn’t mean it’s BECAUSE of the ten commandments! It has nothing to do with “biblical authority.” What do athiests base their ideas of right and wrong on? That “something” is not the bible, ten commandments, Jesus, or anything else but their own ethics and standards.
BTW, Jefferson also crossed out a LOT of stuff from the New Testament, he pretty much made his own bible and took out all the things he thought were superstitious and silly.
It is imperative that we keep church and state separate, and keep pictures of ANY deity out of the courtroom/classroom/etc. And I fully agree with the blog author - start charging these churches taxes! They’re businesses in everything but name…
July 19th, 2007 at 7:19 am
I wonder what the good people of Slidell will say if they have to replace their portraits of President Bush with that of a possible President Obama? I supose for black folk, this would almost be equivalent to a picture of Jesus, but what about the Senator Vitter supporting crowd?
July 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am
But by placing the picture out there, they were implying that everyone within that courthouse holds the same beliefs.
How does it imply that? A figure of Hammurabi is featured in the frieze above the bench in the Supreme Court. Does it imply that everyone in that building is Babylonian?
July 19th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Red herring. Hammurabi is a POLITICAL figure, not a RELIGIOUS one. And 95% of the American population have no clue who he is, or why that image is even there… but it is not for a religious reason…
July 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
This is in response to your “Jesus in the courtroom”.
I do disagree with you, but that’s why I love ya,
you’ve always expressed yourself no matter what. This is a serious subject, I’m glad to see you go for it K, all the different cultures, icon’s ect., for me the picture is reassuring, the swearing in with a Bible and “so help me God”, it saddens me at times to see people swear in and lie through their teeth but then thats another “blog”.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Luckily people are not sworn in on the bible anymore (maybe if they ask to) and any official swearing in of a gov’t officer is not done on any ‘holy book’ - it is only the personal, “unofficial” swearing in done later that might be done on a bible, koran, or other scripture book.