Monday, August 25, 2003

Church and State: In my original post I was, perhaps, wandering a little off the subject of this particular case. In this instance, I think Judge Moore does cross the amendment's line by placing the monument so prominently in the courthouse. The other eight judges may not feel compelled to adjudicate based on the ten commandments, but it sure gives a clear message about where Moore is coming from.

As for my other comments, about religion and politics in general, I think some go too far by declaring a judicial appointee unfit based on his religious convictions. There's a real good way to tell if a judge will base his rulings on religious principles or, properly, on precedent. Examine his record. No, a judge may not "use his office as a pedestal from which to trumpet his beliefs..." How a devout Catholic wrestles with his conscience when interpreting Roe v. Wade is his business, but he had better follow the law. We'd expect the same from a strict vegetarian hearing a suit involving McDonalds.

My point is that individuals acting in a public capacity are entitled to their own convictions, religious or otherwise. It's how they act in their official capacity that should be the test of their qualifications.

No comments: