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