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.
Please tell me you are not a lawyer. Please.
And your legal basis for expressing Freedom of Religion during a murder trial is?
Evidence must be admitted to a court. Facts are not.
Please see my #39.
That is a traditional observance in their faith and should be respected as such.
I tend to have more respect for what Jesus has to say about such practices. Just my opinion.
It also does not mean that you have not washed your face or "anointed your head" (something no one does these days unless they are a male model) that day either.
I would also point out that Jesus is a Jew and he fasted on Yom Kippur like every other observant Jew does. No Jew fasted in secret on Yom Kippur - it was a universal practice.
Similarly, among Christians, fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday is a universal practice.
It is clear from the context of the Scripture passage that Jesus was talking about the Pharisaic practice of not just fasting on Yom Kippur - like everyone else - but fasting twice a week every week and making a big show of it.
It is clear that you do not.
If you respect someone, then you do not quote them out of context.
No need to be condescending, I live in the real world and know how it works. I also understand the difference between facts and evidence.
“Ashes on one’s forehead are evidence that one attended Ash Wednesday mass during one’s lunch break.”
Did the judge question the lawyer on what he did during lunch? If so, then it is evidence that he went to Mass. If not, the fact that he had ashes on his forehead is only evidence that he had ashes on his forehead.
He was no coward. He was the prosecuting attorney. Why take chances on a mistrial. Not a time to make a constitutional issue here.
This is bald anti-Catholicism. The judge would never have tried this if it involved a Muslim custom or practice.
That's a topic for a whole 'nother thread. My belief is that God looks upon the heart, rather than upon the form of worship.
I've known "rote" Catholics who mouth the words and go through the motions, but I've known others who are genuine God loving Christians. And I've known Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. of both stripes as well.
And just because the Mormons have what seems to many of us some strange side beliefs, if they accept Christ as their savior I accept them as Christians.
Like I said, whole 'nother thread!
God Bless you.
And you are wondering why I'm becoming condescending? Poor judge: he walks into an on-going murder trial and has to deal with whether ash is legally ash, a forehead is legally a forehead, and Wednesday is legally Wednesday.
Not everything is anti-Catholicism. I think this is just a case of ignorance of a Catholic custom in a very Protestant state.
As has been noted here, and as I have seen many times in the courtrooms of NYC, observant orthodox Jewish men are NEVER required to remove their yarmulkes. The meaning of the yarmulke is admission by the wearer that he is "under God", as meaningful an expression as the ashes' representation of dust thou art and to dust thou shall return.
This was a petty act by a magistrate with no basis in law, but which violated the right of a person to carry out a precept of his Faith.
The compelling state interest here is a fair trial for someone accused of murder.
“Please tell me you are not a lawyer. Please.”
:)
Ash on the lawyer’s forehead is not evidence and not governed by the rules of evidence.
“And you are wondering why I’m becoming condescending?”
No. I am not wondering why. I stated an opinion that you are being condescending.
“Poor judge: he walks into an on-going murder trial and has to deal with whether ash is legally ash, a forehead is legally a forehead, and Wednesday is legally Wednesday.”
Not sure what this has to do with anything. I was responding to your introduction of the term evidence into this discussion.
In that case, remove the American flag, eliminate the ‘swearing to tell the truth under God’ and have everyone in the courtroom naked to ensure that there are no prejudicial facts, er, evidence that could sway the 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.