Should judges mix courts with religion? (Graphic warning)

[rug]

On Tuesday, as they do every September, judges in Ontario will assemble in a house of worship for some religion, fellowship and celebration.

The occasion is an annual “interfaith service” that kicks off a day of pomp and ceremony to mark a new term for Ontario’s courts.

The service, which takes place this year in the picturesque Church of the Holy Trinity behind the Eaton Centre, has been a fixture on the court calendar in Toronto since 1955.

Judges are asked to wear their robes and there is a bus to shuttle them from the courthouse to the service, which has also taken place in synagogues over the years.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1052633--should-judges-mix-courts-with-religion

[trotsky]

1. Remember, non-believers:

You are second class citizens in Canada, too.

[cleanhippie]

2. No, they shouldn't. Impartially is impossible otherwise.

I fail to see how this concept is so difficult to grasp for so many.

[Jim__]

3. Don't know enough about Canada's traditions to comment. But, the Canadian Secular Alliance seems ...

OK with it. From the article:

What do those who have formally declared themselves to be “non-religious” think of this? The Canadian Secular Alliance, which advocates for government “neutrality” in religion, finds “any blurring of church and state problematic,” says spokesman Kevin Smith. But, perhaps surprisingly, the alliance isn’t calling for an end to the interfaith service. Actually, they want in.

“We find it hypocritical that while the organizers are trying to be inclusive by inviting the smallest faith groups (Zoroastrians have taken part in the service) they ignore the fastest growing world-view, the non-religious,” Smith said.

“It is time we were included in the theist club.”

[socialshockwave]

4. But athiesm is about not having a religion.

I find it rather hypocritical that they fight so hard for the right to NOT believe in anything, only to now want to class "belief in nothing" as a religion.

[cleanhippie]

5. Actually, you are not finding it hypocritical.

Instead, what you are finding is that you infer your own meaning in what you read and have no idea what you are talking about.

[Jim__]

7. To me it seems like a positive approach.

Instead of trying to stop what people have traditionally done, they're asking to be included as part of the tradition. I'm not sure what they would offer in the way of a service; but I'm sure they could have something. It's a lot less confrontational than demanding that everyone else change.

[trotsky]

8. Definitely more positive. I wish that angle had been taken in the past with other abuses.

Like the lynching, disenfranchisement, and segregation of blacks in the South. It would have been a lot less confrontational if the North had just adopted these practices too, rather than demanding Southern racists change.

For those who need it: :sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

9. So you don't see any reason

why a minority group might actually want to be part of a governmentally based group? So when the blacks want into the white-only country clubs, would your answer be "Why do they want to be there when they aren't white?"

They want to be represented. The government shouldn't be excluding a group just based on religion. Even more so if they are pretty much inviting everyone else. It sucks at the back of the bus.

[deacon_sephiroth]

6. that's all backward

The courts shouldn't be going to the religious organizations.... More religious organizations should be taken to court.