Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!riddle
From: riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: religion and public life -- NOW and the Mormon judge
Message-ID: <2996@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 11:54:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2996
Posted: Tue Aug  7 11:54:15 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Aug-84 00:32:36 EDT
References: <1672@sdccs6.UUCP> <192@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Tx. at Houston-in-the-Hills
Lines: 17

[Re the judge who was reputedly opposed by NOW because he was a Mormon:]

Wait a minute -- did NOW say, "He's a Mormon, so he must be biased," or
did they look at his rulings and find Mormon bias in them?  There's
quite a difference.  I don't object to the fact that James Watt was a
Christian, but I definitely object to James Watt's pursuit of certain
policies because he believed God had told him to sell off federal
lands.

Judges should be free to follow any religion they choose, but when they
step up on that bench, they have to follow the law.  If they can't
reconcile that with their religious beliefs, they shouldn't accept the
job (or should disqualify themselves from those cases where there is a
conflict, assuming they are few).

--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle