Posted on 02/20/2010 6:28:41 AM PST by Free Vulcan
A Marshall County Attorney in the midst of prosecuting an attempted murder case was asked by the court Wednesday to remove a smudge of ash from his forehead, a Catholic custom done in conjunction with the beginning of Lent.
Conservative writer Ken Black of the Marshalltown Times-Republican reports that Paul Crawford, an assistant county attorney, returned to the courtroom following a lunch break with the ash on his forehead. Catholics place the mark, which is often done in the shape of a cross, on their foreheads as a sign of repentance. The ash itself is often a by-product of the burning of palm crosses from the previous year, mixed lightly with holy water and sacred oils. Many recipients of the mark will wear it until it naturally wears off.
Prior to the jury returning, an attorney for the defense objected to the marking, and indicated that it could influence the jury in the case.
Judge Michael Moon agreed and requested the Crawford remove the smudge before the case proceeded. The attorney did so and the case moved forward without further discussion or incident.
oops, not “God” but “GO and sin no more.”
It is, however, something that the defense attorney felt could be prejudicial to his client. I'm guessing he felt that the ashes would draw the attention of the jury, and would cause them to make value judgments based on sentiment toward the prosecuting attorney, rather than on the evidence. Juror sentiment is a big part of reaching a verdict, even if it's not supposed to be.
So it's actually a pretty reasonable objection, especially if the defendant is a dirtbag.
Case in point--Joe Biden!
The old rule of thumb was that if you find yourself wanting to wear the ashes throughout the day, you should wash them off. If you find yourself wanting to wash them off (out of embarrassment), you should leave them on.
Well stated--so well stated, that I wish I'd have said it. NEVER FEAR--I WILL!
I know there is a dress code for attorneys in the courtroom,
but maybe the judge in this case thought the ashes made the attorney look unkempt.
I agree with you - it was right to remove it.
Now, don’t get me started about that twit Biden going on TV with the ashes! The twit had to have his TV makeup put on around the ashes (or the ashes re-applied)!!!
“...I am quite familiar with the spin put on the the practice.”
Exactly WHO is spinning ? Oh, that would be arturo.
Maybe, but I think the judge was simply reacting to an objection that was raised by defense counsel when the prosecutor returned from Ash Wednesday service. I think defense counsel argued the ashes might be prejudicial to his client. The judge agreed.
Let's take a look at the context: who was Jesus physically addressing in this passage of Scripture? Who was personally present to hear these words?
Jews of the first century, who looked to the Pharisees as the prime teachers of their religion and the ones who set an example to them of how to observe the Torah.
For Jews of the first century, public fasting was a laudable activity and someone who was known to be a dedicated faster was a man of great respect. As was someone who prayed publicly, as was someone who publicly gave alms to the poor. In first century Judaea, being known as someone who regularly did these things was essential for one's social status: the tax collectors and other sinners didn't do these things - but the rulers of the synagogues, the chief priests and the Pharisees did.
In first century Judaea, every Jew did public prayer (in the synagogues, at the Temple), every Jew publicly fasted (certainly on Yom Kippur and also on other fast days) and every Jew gave public alms (on the great feasts). Jesus in no way condemns public prayer, or partaking in the common fast days, or givng alms on the feasts (for example, his praise of the widow at the Temple treasury).
What he is telling these people gathered in front of him is that these practices (prayer, fasting, almsgiving) are good in and of themselves and that doing them for the purpose of social status - like so many of the Pharisees do - is a misuse of these practices.
He is also saying that partaking in these activities outside of the normal course - doing them on regular days outside of the sabbath and the holy days - is also a good thing.
But in order to keep one's motives pure and not seek after social status, one should pray, fast and give alms secretly.
Jesus was not calling Jews who went to pray in the synagogues on the sabbath hypocrites because such activities are public. He did Himself. He was not saying that Jews who fasted on Yom Kippur were hypocrites for fasting along with everyone else. Nor was he saying that Jews who gave alms on the holy days were hypocrites either - for example the widow.
He is telling the gathered crowd that they should, besides these public acts partaken in by the whole community, also undertake their own acts of prayer, fasting and almsgiving - but to do these extras in secret - unlike the Pharisees who did these extras in public so people would think they were especially holy.
Let's fast forward to today. The Christian Church has its own public fast days - Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. It holds public worship every day, especially on the Lord's Day. It publicly collects alms during worship. Partaking in these communal good works that everyone does is not hypocrisy - it is part of acting as a member of the people of God.
Fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is not going out of the way to be noticed and applauded - it is simply participating in the life of the Church. It is no more showing off or being hypocritical than putting on one's Sunday best and going to church.
That is simply part of publicly acknowledging Christ - and Christ Himself says that if we confess Him before men he will confess us before His Father (Matthew 10:32).
If one follows your interpretation of this passage, then any public profession of one's status as a Christian (ashes on Ash Wednesday, going to church on the Lord's Day, proclaiming the Gospel) is hypocritical and forbidden.
But, as Matthew 10 shows us - Jesus wants us to publicly profess Him.
You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"
Ah, but fasting is indeed a custom recommended by God Himself in His Holy Scriptures. Fasting for one day or even forty days is to follow the personal example of Christ and His apostles.
If the prosecutor was waving around a receipt that he had tithed all his mint and cumin, you'd be more on point.
Specifically because certain things he might say would deprive others of their Constitutional rights.
Wearing a smudge of ash on one's forehead hardly meets that standard.
It is a sign saying, effectively: "I acknowledge that I am a sinner and that I need to repent."
What do you believe is the meaning of “God and sin no more.”
That if you have been forgiven your sins, you should not commit any sins in the future.
And, in a perfect world, no forgiven sinner would ever sin again. But this is an imperfect world, and they do.
You must be new around here. The "rude 1" knows no other way to be.
Not at all. Have you ever seen an attorney in court wearing tie-dye shirts, faded blue jeans and flip-flops? Of course you haven't. Why? Because American jurisprudence recognizes the Court's primacy with respect to setting the standards of decorum, dress and behavior in the courtroom. By contrast, the Court (read: government) can't tell a private citizen not to wear the hippy clothes in public precisely because of 1st Amendment guarantees. As strange as it sounds, when in Court some Constitutional rights are suspended, with free speech being one of them.
"Wearing a smudge of ash on one's forehead hardly meets that standard."
The trial judge disagreed, and for an appellate court, that's really all that matters - at least when weighing the case law that's already been established.
Correction: Having been raised a poorly catechized Roman Catholic
If something is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught,
Obviously you only think you know what Jesus taught.
"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children. Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein were done the most of His miracles, for that they had not done penance. Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you." Matthew 11:19-22
I'll remember that the next time you say something stupid.
The judge (agreeing with the attorney) ruled that the ashes are evidence that the prosecutor attended an Ash Wednesday service, and that the fact that he has ashes on his forehead may prejudice the jury.
Strained? Maybe. But certainly not as strained as arguing that "ash on forehead simply means ash on forehead," or arguing that "the prosecutor may be a fireman."
So they might be more inclined to find the defendant not guilty? Justice would not be served.
Worlds apart yes. But both the ashes and a hijab are significators of a particular religion.
I’m an Atheist and I wouldn’t have said anything. Last time I checked that’s covered under “Freedom of Speech”. The only plausible argument is the timing, why didn’t he show up with the mark in the morning?
True...
I think a suit and tie unduly influences a jury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.