crh

There's an article in the Washington Post 2/19/02(A3) regarding the Texas mother who killed all her kids. The story ends with the DA saying that he is bound by his oath of office to follow the law yet he says he is basing his decision "after seeking wisdom from God". That sounds like a blatant disregard for separation of church and state. If I were this woman's defense attorney, I'd have that butthead removed from the case!!

I wonder if this country's next civil war will be fought over the issue of separation. Start stocking up on ammo now.

Net Rover

This is an interesting case, full of contradictions. First, the Yates' are fundies who refused to control having children because they believe children are gifts from God. Second, Mom kills her "gifts from God" ('cause if it's a gift the recipient can do as she pleases?). Third, the prosecutor wants to throw the book at her, and no doubt pursue the death penalty due to relgious reasons. Fourth, Mom's defense is insanity, a plea that fundies virtually never support!

I personally believe she is/was insane, but it will be all but impossible to convince the jury. If she thought she was doing the right thing, why did she call 911 immediately afterward? That's pretty damning, IMHO.

bonduca

Supposedly post-partum psychosis. She was on Haldol previously after birth of next to last child, auditory hallucinations, suicide attempts, physician had strongly recommended no more children. Hubby said they decided to have however many god sent them.

She was home-schooling all of them as well as having yet another infant, housework, etc., had been main caretaker for father in final stages of Alzheimers, was deeply depressed about his recent death.

It appears to be a lot of work to be a good Christian wife.....?

trebor

crh, since you seem to have intended this as a church/state separation discussion rather than a discussion of Andrea Yates, I'll bring it back to topic.
1. Does church/state separation bind "religious" individuals from "seeking wisdom from their God" and admitting that they do so?
2. Are "religious" individuals required to leave their religion at the door when they leave their house?
3. Does the first amendment only guarantee freedom FROM religion?

Or, perhaps I should just ask for your take on how this DA's "admission" violates church/state separation, since you asserted it, but did not explain it?

southernhybrid

I read yesterday that Yates and some of her fundy supporters believe that she was possessed by demons. I have also heard that Yates thinks god wanted her to kill the children to save them from demons. It does seem ironic that Yates blames it on demons/god and the DA says god wants him to push for the death penalty. It just gives us one more example of the ludicrous nature of religion. The poor woman gets possessed by demons or gets a message from god and then god tells the DA to fry her. Once again, god shows us just how cruel and confusing he can be.

Let me take a stab at why we might feel the DA's position is a violation of church and state.
I guess the problem with the DA consulting god rather than going by the letter of the law is that there are many different religions and each may have a different interpretation of what would be the fitting punishment for this type of crime. Also, some religions might object to the death penalty on any grounds while others might find it appropriate for all types of murder. That's why we have secular laws to guide the DA and judges. Since some of us don't believe that there is a god, we are concerned that any decision based on guidance from god is a purely subjective one. Ideally, interpretation of the law should be as objective as possible. When you put religion into the picture you lose that objectivity. So, yes, ideally a public servant should leave his/her religion outside the door, especially when it comes to interpretation of secular laws. The defendant should have freedom from religious influence when being tried. Of course this has been widely abused in our country but that doesn't mean that we won't raise our voices in protest to what we see as a potential injustice. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Also, I see no reason why the DA needed to announce that he called on god for guidance. He could have kept this to himself so what conclusion can one reach but that he announced it for political reasons to please his conservative supporters.

Personally I do believe that our government was originally set up to maintain freedom from religion when it comes to governmental matters. I believe the freedom of religion refers to the personal faith and practice of the individual. I find it very difficult to understand why even a theist would want religion to influence government. I don't even see how Xians can find Biblical support for the mixing of church and state. It seems to contradict the Bible. I was raised by conservative Baptists who believed in strict separation of church and state. That's one area that we are still in agreement.

Panta Pei

Well said, southernhybrid

From my experience in law enforcement and the criminal justice system comes this bit of wisdom regarding the C/S questions posed:

1. Religious individuals are never bound from seeking wisdom from their God(s, dess, es) and admitting that they do?

However, those deemed worthy of using rational thought processes and presenting facts and circumstances for evidentiary purpose to present to 12 ‘unbiased’ jurors may be expected not to enter into supernatural claims as their justification or methodology as it may taint those jurors that share the same superstitions. By making that statement, the prosecutor implied that ‘God’ responded to him personally and granted him divine wisdom to proceed as indicated. Please tell me, trebor, that you see just a slight problem with this sort of shamanism in a court of law.

2. Religious individuals are not required to leave their religion at the door when they leave their house.

Their ‘religion’ would be quite lame if it could be legislated in this manner. However (again), claiming contact with a fairy tale king does allege some sort of divine significance and is really just a means to intimidate others of superstitious mindset. Worse, it may reduce the proceedings to spell casting and praying (yes, this is exaggerated sarcasm). I would propose that a prosecutor claiming his ouija board advised him to proceed with the death penalty be removed and have his head examined. Anyone else?

3. The First Amendment protects us from those who would rather see it as the First Commandment.

It is my hope that this explains, at least, my position on this matter.

Perhaps, trebor, you can annotate the justification for a District Attorney to make such a public admission and then provide how this really sheds illumination on the facts and circumstances of the Yates case and her potential sentence.

~ Steve

Welcome to planet Earth, where belief masquerades as knowledge.

crh

You took the words right out of my mouth (more or less)! I would just really love to see that bonehead taken off the case because he shot off his stupid mouth. It might even give me some hope that reason will someday overcome ignorance and superstition with these silly humans.
Cheers

smalso

crh: I trust you are not holding your breath until that happens. Unfortunately, the notion that the United States is a Christian nation is and has always been a popular one. The events of September 11 and their aftermath have only spurred that notion to new speeds. Consider the demented ramblings of Falwell and Robertson to the effect that New York deserved what happened because of its tolerance of homosexuality and abortion. This crap from a man who once aspired to be President of the United States! And promised that more would be coming unless the nation gets back to god! Somebody help me here. I'm starting really to get pissed. I do every time I start thinking about this.

trebor

<<<Perhaps, trebor, you can annotate the justification for a District Attorney to make such a public admission and then provide how this really sheds illumination on the facts and circumstances of the Yates case and her potential sentence. - Panta Pei>>> Perhaps you read the article a little differently than I. I did not take his "admission" as relating to how he would try the Yates case, but rather how he would reconcile this case, the death penalty, and his conscience. If there are more quotes to clarify this, it would be good that someone would post or paste them. <<<However, those deemed worthy of using rational thought processes and presenting facts and circumstances for evidentiary purpose to present to 12 ‘unbiased’ jurors may be expected not to enter into supernatural claims as their justification or methodology as it may taint those jurors that share the same superstitions.>>> I may find your criminal justice experience (especially relative to influencing jurors) is a little naïve if you think lawyers only use rational thought, facts, and evidence. In one sense, it is the lawyers' job to "taint" the jurors (get them to decide in their favor). But I seriously doubt this "God thing" will be mentioned in court. <<<By making that statement, the prosecutor implied that ‘God’ responded to him personally and granted him divine wisdom to proceed as indicated. Please tell me, trebor, that you see just a slight problem with this sort of shamanism in a court of law.>>> As far as the "shamanism" in court, though a problem, it is ever present and not limited to any particular group of people. As for his intent, I have answered above as to how I took the statement. <<<I would propose that a prosecutor claiming his ouija board advised him to proceed with the death penalty be removed and have his head examined.>>> But this is part of my point - in a free country one has every right to do so. And the public has every right to have one removed who does so. <<<The First Amendment protects us from those who would rather see it as the First Commandment.>>> You might wish to explain what you mean. I am familiar with the First Amendment, and, I think, the first commandment (no other gods), but I'm not sure how you intend this.

<<<Let me take a stab at why we might feel the DA's position is a violation of church and state.
- southernhybrid>>> Who is we? Do you have multiple personalities or are you speaking for everyone here? <<<I guess the problem with the DA consulting god rather than going by the letter of the law is that there are many different religions and each may have a different interpretation of what would be the fitting punishment for this type of crime.>>> You would first need show that his consulting God and going by the letter of the law is absolutely contradictory. <<<Also, some religions might object to the death penalty on any grounds while others might find it appropriate for all types of murder.>>> It is not only religious persons that have opinions varying from death penalty laws. Whether people consult their "god", their "conscience", their "reason", etc. etc., the ultimate test of good public servants is that they do what is in the public interest. If this guy doesn't, the people are free to elect a new DA. <<<Ideally, interpretation of the law should be as objective as possible. When you put religion into the picture you lose that objectivity.>>> I totally agree. It does not matter what one's religious beliefs are, the law should be interpreted as it is written. But again, it is not only the religious who cannot always judge apart from their bias. <<<He could have kept this to himself so what conclusion can one reach but that he announced it for political reasons to please his conservative supporters.>>> This is a good possibility, though for now it is merely assumed, not proven. If so, this is possibly more savvy politics than religion (his next election could prove if it were actually savvy or stupid ).

Panta Pei

Trebor stated:

"Perhaps you read the article a little differently than I. I did not take his "admission" as relating to how he would try the Yates case, but rather how he would reconcile this case, the death penalty, and his conscience. If there are more quotes to clarify this, it would be good that someone would post or paste them."

You must be joking. The D.A. admitted to a shamanistic praying to ‘God” not reconciling “his conscience” to determine his course of action. The quote stands as an admission of this, none more are needed.

"I may find your criminal justice experience (especially relative to influencing jurors) is a little naïve if you think lawyers only use rational thought, facts, and evidence. In one sense, it is the lawyers' job to "taint" the jurors (get them to decide in their favor). But I seriously doubt this "God thing" will be mentioned in court."

As a veteran violent crimes investigator with years of trial experience, I sincerely contest your assertion that I am a little naïve regarding the use of rational thought, facts and evidence in court by lawyers. In fact, I would lay claim that your own view is unsupported, cynical and more than likely formed from within the T.V. set.

The “God thing” should most definitely not be mentioned in court (we shall see) and should not have been mentioned at all in any forum by those directly involved in the trial process. That this happens, at times, does not make it the right thing to do in a court of law.

"As far as the "shamanism" in court, though a problem, it is ever present and not limited to any particular group of people. As for his intent, I have answered above as to how I took the statement."

My post is in contest to the very idea that shamanism, in any form, is appropriate in a court of law. I agree that it is present in both covert and overt form, again, but it should not be and should be vigilantly identified and denounced.

"But this is part of my point - in a free country one has every right to do so. And the public has every right to have one removed who does so."

So, then, you will support the D.A.’s removal or sanction? Please be clear in your response.

A free country provides for any goof-ball cult to practice its dogma as long as it harms none. My contention is that courts of law, and other tax supported forums should be fantasy-free zones.

Do you agree?

If not, which fantasy paranormal mumbo jumbo would you accept as credible in a court of law?

"You might wish to explain what you mean. I am familiar with the First Amendment, and, I think, the first commandment (no other gods), but I'm not sure how you intend this."

Then you are being disingenuous in true Christian form.

Yahweh wants you to disregard other deities or else (first commandment) vs. We, the people, want you to be free to practice a regard for the deity(s) of your choice or none at all with no entanglements or ramifications (first amendment).

"Who is we? Do you have multiple personalities or are you speaking for everyone here?"

Southern and I tend to agree. In my book, that makes it ‘we’. Multiple personalities aside

"You would first need show that his consulting God and going by the letter of the law is absolutely contradictory."

Hello…is this thing on

Refer back to the ouija board analogy, trebor. Just because you appear to share a membership in the cult of 'God' with the D.A. does not allow conformity with the letter of the law. Statutes should be kept secular for justice to prevail. Which particular gris-gris would offend your intelligence at a trial?

"It is not only religious persons that have opinions varying from death penalty laws. Whether people consult their "god", their "conscience", their "reason", etc. etc., the ultimate test of good public servants is that they do what is in the public interest. If this guy doesn't, the people are free to elect a new DA."

We agree that good public servants should do what is best for the public. Consulting Miss Cleo’s tarot deck or praying to ‘God’(s, etc.) for legal advice should run counter to that.

Reason and conscience are not synonymous with a fairy sky king (aka God) no matter how liberal, enigmatic or mystical you wish to be regarding the matter.

"I totally agree. It does not matter what one's religious beliefs are, the law should be interpreted as it is written. But again, it is not only the religious who cannot always judge apart from their bias."

There is a definite difference between disagreement over legal matters and the introduction of superstition into the realm of law.

You make the stretch that those who maintain secular or rational sensibility are somehow in similar error. This has always seemed to me to be an attempt to create an enemy whereby cults can then claim some sort imaginary perpetual victimization of their dogma.

"This is a good possibility, though for now it is merely assumed, not proven. If so, this is possibly more savvy politics than religion (his next election could prove if it were actually savvy or stupid."

Though this is admission is inherently offensive, you are to be lauded for your theistic honesty. Religion used by the body politic to advance their personal agenda without doubt occurs.

My contention is that it should not occur and that is what most have contended in this very thread. It is not that those in power truly believe in the nonsense of ‘religion’, but that it holds superstitious sway over the minds of the masses and it can be thus manipulated to perpetuate their own personal greed.

Thanks for your perspective, trebor, it shows me how much works still needs to be done for the secular cause

~ Steve