Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney asked by judge to remove Ash Wednesday observance
Iowa Independent ^ | 02/19/10 | Lynda Waddington

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: ashwednesday; christians; church; cross; iowa; law; ruling; state
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last
For discussion.
1 posted on 02/20/2010 6:28:41 AM PST by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

‘Paul Crawford’. a Catholic without conviction. UnF’n believable.< /s>


2 posted on 02/20/2010 6:32:27 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

What’s to discuss? It’s prejudicial. The only way it wouldn’t be is if everyone in the court had ash on their foreheads.


3 posted on 02/20/2010 6:33:26 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
I saw one of the leftwing atheist Bamanoids on tv the other day, conspicuously displaying ashes. It was most likely recommended by the 'rat consultants as a way to curry favor with those credulous catholic religious clingers in the electorate.
4 posted on 02/20/2010 6:33:33 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

He could have wiped it off himself without any prompting but this is a matter of religion and the judge had no authority to ask him to take it off.


5 posted on 02/20/2010 6:33:54 AM PST by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

So you believe that Muslim women should and could be asked to remove their head coverings in a courtroom setting because they are prejudicial?


6 posted on 02/20/2010 6:35:34 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

However, Ali Baba can do as he pleases!


7 posted on 02/20/2010 6:35:58 AM PST by SPC CHEESE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tiki

Yea,I wonder what would happened to da judge if it was a yar
mulke or turban?


8 posted on 02/20/2010 6:36:37 AM PST by Dr. Ursus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

Yes.


9 posted on 02/20/2010 6:36:46 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tiki
. . . and the judge had no authority to ask him to take it off.

What? Are you kidding?

10 posted on 02/20/2010 6:37:50 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

But burkhas are ok.


11 posted on 02/20/2010 6:38:32 AM PST by bunkerhill7 (God bless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
What’s to discuss? It’s prejudicial. The only way it wouldn’t be is if everyone in the court had ash on their foreheads.

Was the case about religion? How is the display of ashes prejudicial in a criminal or civil case NOT involving religion?

12 posted on 02/20/2010 6:38:47 AM PST by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

Matthew 6:1 - “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”


13 posted on 02/20/2010 6:39:26 AM PST by arturo ("A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." - G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
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
*** For discussion. ***

Nah. I don't think I'll 'discuss' this. As if I follow the (cough) 'logical' progression of thought where this could (blank) lead, it just may get me banned.

And Saturdays are never a good day to get the zot. Plus it's Lent so I'm tryin' real hard to be nice.

14 posted on 02/20/2010 6:41:11 AM PST by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits [A. Einstein])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the phrase “...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”


15 posted on 02/20/2010 6:43:26 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
In what possible way is it prejudicial?

I'd really like you to lay out the logic behind your statement.

16 posted on 02/20/2010 6:45:16 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
[Federal] Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

17 posted on 02/20/2010 6:45:59 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

How many times have we heard cases where a judge requested a jew to remove his yarmulke in the courtroom because the opposing attorney objected?

It’s bias, the judge was wrong, and the attorney was a coward to removing the ashes.


18 posted on 02/20/2010 6:46:19 AM PST by NoKoolAidforMe (1-20-09--The Beginning of an Error..............1-20-13--Change we can look forward to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

see my #17


19 posted on 02/20/2010 6:46:21 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: arturo
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”

Ashes on one's forehead are hardly a mark of "righteousness" - they are a public admission that one is a sinner.

20 posted on 02/20/2010 6:48:15 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson