Attorney asked by judge to remove Ash Wednesday observance

Iowa Independent ^ | 02/19/10 | Lynda Waddington

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

Sounds like the defense attorney was shopping for a reason to appeal.

[arkady_renko]

Good for you. Thanks from a Catholic who also sees in this ancient practice the response of the people of Ninevah to Jonah's warning.

They repented in sackcloth and ashes.

[arturo]

It is clear that you do not.

If you respect someone, then you do not quote them out of context.

Please check out Matthew 6 in its entirety, then, and enlighten us how the context is different from the passages cited.

The fact is, most of the chapter has to do with warnings against putting acts of piety on public display.

Mark 7:9 - And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

[1rudeboy]

Ashes on one's forehead are evidence that one attended Ash Wednesday mass during one's lunch break. The issue is whether evidence that one attended Ash Wednesday mass during one's lunch break is admissible to a jury. It is not under Rule 403.

I'm laughing at your suggestion that the ashes are 1. not evidence of the above due to your hypothetical lack of foundation, or 2. evidence of something else.

[1rudeboy]

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.

I could see how a prosecutor waving an American flag and shouting USA! USA! USA! might be prejudicial. /s

[LibLieSlayer]

No, your honor-less.

LLS

[Francis McClobber]

By stating that ashes on a person’s forehead is evidence that one went to Ash Wednesday mass is coming to a conclusion based on an observation. If a fireman has ashes on his forehead, does that mean he went to Ash Wednesday Mass?

Here’s the difference between a fact and evidence.

It is a fact that I opined that you were being condescending. it is a fact that you responded that I wondered why you were being condescending. I can use that fact as evidence that you were being condescending.

Thanks for the discussion.

[the_daug]

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.

The person ,Crawford that could have objected did not do so. He showed his respect to the authority of the court.

[Houghton M.]

That’s what it’s supposed to be. But signs are polyvalent. As practiced by Catholics today, unfortunately, in some (many?) instances, Ash Wednesday ashes have become a tribal statement for Easter and Christmas Catholics. 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.

That said, I agree that there is a double-standard— Jew would not be asked to remove a yarmulke. So I think the judge was wrong in this case.

[1rudeboy]

I'm being condescending because there is no evidence (there's that word, again) in the article that the prosecutor did anything but attend Ash Wednesday services during his lunch break, much less a building on fire. Get a grip.

[verity]

The judge requested..not ordered..the removal.

There is no problem for non-fanatics.

[1rudeboy]

And one more thing: even if our vaunted prosecutor was in close proximity to a burning building during his lunchbreak, and appeared in court with ashes on his forehead, the judge would still have the power to tell him to wipe it off.

[OldDeckHand]

"‘Paul Crawford’. a Catholic without conviction. "

Hardly. The court room is a place for lawyers to advocate for their clients, period. It's not a place from them to make personal political or theological declarations. Precisely, how would it advance the interests of his client to find himself on the business end of a contempt citation?

To brand this man as "a Catholic without conviction", is completely out of line.

[sgtyork]

Posted legal para refers to evidence not participants. Poor logic is evidenced here.

[1rudeboy]

Read on and weep.

[EDINVA]

As has already been noted, ashes reflect the exact opposite of righteousness. Gotta do a little reading up there, fella.

[OldDeckHand]

"But burkhas are ok."

There are a number of cases where judges have instructed women to remove the hijab from their faces. One of those cases may be found below...

Georgia judge jails Muslim woman for wearing headscarf to court

I believe litigation over this incident is ongoing.

[arkady_renko]

I think it fairly amusing that you use a Chesterton quote in your anti-Chatholic posts...

Here's another Chesterton tagline you might want to consider:

“The person who will not have a softening of the heart will eventually have a softening of the brain!”

[arturo]

I think it fairly amusing that you use a Chesterton quote in your anti-Chatholic posts...

And I find it amusing that quoting Jesus is considered by you to be "anti-Chatholic."

[sportutegrl]

I believe that the ashes would tell the jury that the wearer is Catholic. If there are any Catholics or any Christians in the jury, they may be convinced that his is the side of the angels. Alternately, some anti-Christians may be inclined to vote against his side simply because he has advertised his faith.