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.
Sounds like the defense attorney was shopping for a reason to appeal.
They repented in sackcloth and ashes.
If you respect someone, then you do not quote them out of context.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!"
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.
I could see how a prosecutor waving an American flag and shouting USA! USA! USA! might be prejudicial. /s
No, your honor-less.
LLS
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.
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.
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.
There is no problem for non-fanatics.
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.
Posted legal para refers to evidence not participants. Poor logic is evidenced here.
Read on and weep.
As has already been noted, ashes reflect the exact opposite of righteousness. Gotta do a little reading up there, fella.
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.
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!
And I find it amusing that quoting Jesus is considered by you to be "anti-Chatholic."
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.
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.