Should Judges consider religious concepts in their decisions

Religious concepts? Lets not go there. Just apply the law, which is not a bad thing for a judge to do.

Sharia Law - No way

Only when it agrees with civil laws. c.i.

The posted link was incorrect should have been
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/politics/10JUDG.html?todaysheadlines

Agree- with all. Judges have a public duty to uphold the Constitution. What they believe in private is their own personal business, and should NEVER affect their legal decisions.

Tommy's remark about Sharia, might have been with tongue in cheek, but is a very important idea. Even though Christianity is the most popular religion in the US, it is merely one of a whole spectrum of beliefs that US citizens hold. Once a judge starts basing decisions on on ANY religious belief, and not the Constitution, we are treading down a dangerous, slippery slope

No, unless they are willing to pray for the plaintiff and the defendent in court.

au1929: you asked the following question:

"Should Judges consider religious concepts in their decisions?"

If by "religious concepts" you mean Social beliefs then, yes.
If by "religious concepts" you mean Christian beliefs then, yes.
If by "religious concepts" you mean Muslim beliefs then, yes.
If by "religious concepts" you mean Jewish beliefs then, yes...

...or for that matter ANY form of religious organisation's beliefs then, yes.

Why?
Considering a religious concept may form part of an individual's value-system and hence give a judge an insight into the individual's behaviour. Most people do act upon their beliefs, and as such, they are making conscious or subconscious decisions based upon their own personal beliefs.

Whether a person does so in the capacity of a janitor, flight attendant or judge, should make no difference. We all make decisions based upon guidelines, rules, regulations and ultimately, our own judgment, which in essence is based upon our own belief system.

The two are inextricably linked - rules with belief and beliefs with rules.

Of course, being an imperfect human, and ever learning with experience over time, I may be wrong. :wink:

Biblio
< The candidate Judge Professor Kmiec has written about the need for judges to interpret the Constitution with
an eye to what theologians and scholars call "natural law." Adherents of natural law
describe it as a body of immutable truths based on religious or transcendent concepts of
right and wrong, something higher than man-made law. >
Is that what we should expect from a judge. Or it his function to interpret the law as written. Without the help of his religious beliefs?

The problem with "religious' truths" is the ability of different people to interpret those truths differently. The matter of interpretation concerning "religious truths" should not be left to the purview of judges. As with any truth, it depends on the eye of the beholder. Civil law has enough problems without inserting outside influences. c.i.

If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out . . .

The religiously motivated people of this country have no business to foist their superstitions onto the rest of us, whether that means people with differing religious superstitions, differing secular superstitions, or no superstitions at all. This is a secular society, and it will only work well as long as it stays that way. "Natural Law" is a conservative code phrase for imposing extra-legal considerations upon a nation which it can be reasonably supposed relies upon the legislative process and the impartiality of the judiciary.

In my opinion our legal system is founded on laws originally set forth in religious concepts. However the lack of reference to religious terms in the law does not mean that religion did not play a part in creating the law. For instance we all accept the idea of prison as punishment for a crime. But the name penitentiary comes from the American Society of Friends (Quakers) and we do not consider the penitentiary in this century to be religious.

Society of Friends and the Penitentiary

Judges are human beings and like the rest of us rely on all of their knowledge to arrive at decisions based on the facts of the cases before them. I have worked with many lawyers in D.C. that studied at Catholic University Law School, some of them were Jewish, I never detected a particular religious bent to there application of the law or in their development of a case theory.

Here's an interesting link on "common law." http://www.commonlaw.com/Coke.html
c.i.

IMO, the question being asked here is a bit to broad and quite possibly misdirected. "Natural Law" isn't anything new to the US. Read the opening words to the Declaration of Independence.

"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."

Natural Law is one of the core concepts in our legal system. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" was carried forward into the drafting and ratifying of our Constitution. I doubt many people would disapprove of the intent of these words even today yet they are based in Natural Law.

Personally, I think to many focus on the "religious" part of the wording in the description of Natural Law and ignore the "or transcendent concepts" part. People jump to the conclusion that someone that ascribes to Natural Law theory bases their views on their religion but no where in Natural Law theory is any religion (or religious belief) pushed.

Law Theory is broken down into 4 seperate categories: (1) eternal law (2) natural law (3) human law and (4) divine law. I think you may be confusing the "religion" part of natural law with "Divine Law" which would be a major mistake as it is an entirely seperate concept.

fishin, I still say that "natural law, laws of nature, and nature's god" all require human interpretation. In that respect, what one person deems to be god's law, may not be acceptable to the atheist. To conclude that "all men are created equal" is not technically accurate. I can list dozens of things that are not equal from one man to the next. To conclude that that is god's law or natural law is stretching the idea of god and/or nature. c.i.

Mixing the duties of being a judge with religion is fine with me, just as long as ...

It's my religion

It's my GOD

It's my religious structure

And I'm the judge

It's fine with me!!


Anon

Anon- Said like a gentleman, and a scholar!

True, but why should the athiest's religious beliefs prevail over any other? The objective is supposed to be secular (i.e. not favoring any specific religion). The standard is for laws that don't infringe on anyone's religion without advancing any religion at the same time. To defer all laws to what an athiest may or may not accept advances the athiest belief over others and violates the concept of secularism.



Perhaps, but you have to take the words out of context to do so. In the context the statement refers to (legal rights) the statement holds up pretty well as the ideal. It doesn't refer to physical attributes, etc..

The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The constitution is. Many people had reservations about adopting the original draft of the constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. This is why Muhlenburg and the first Congress took up the issue of amendments as their first order of business. The first clause of the first amendment to the constitution goes immediately to the issue of the establishment of religion. It is this principle which opponents of the possibility of the imposition of "natural law" see as being threatened. Contending that "natural law" means much more, or something different, than the imposition of specific religious values on our society is not likely to be believed by so many who have reservations on this issue. It is also not simply atheists who become alarmed at the trend toward religious participation in government and the receipt of tax revenues by religious organizations--Jews, Muslims and Roman Catholics can hardly be expected to applaud measures to provide funds to fundamentalist christian schools, or the distribution of federal social relief funds through such organizations. Regardless of the theoretical intent ascribed to "natural law" by it's proponents, many sincere citizens are alarmed by what is seen as a trend to introduce specific religious agendae into government. Legislating from the bench is unacceptable from either those with a liberal or a conservative outlook.

fishin, My inclusion of atheists into the mix was to show that "god's law" does not satisfy all individuals - not that atheists have the final say. As for "all men are created equal," it's an impossible ideal whether it's meaning is true. Human history shows us that! c.i.