Outlawing of Christianity

[sub_zer0]

Was this judge right in what he did?

Junior Stowers raised his hands and exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus!" in court last month when he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.

But his joy was short-lived when Circuit Judge Patrick Border held him in contempt of court for the "outburst" and threw him in jail.

Stowers, 47, sat in the courtroom and a cellblock for about six hours until the judge granted him a hearing on the contempt charge and released him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13898471/

[FlyingGuineapig]

As usual, the facts get skipped (hey, isn't bearing false witness a no-no?). From the link:

The minutes showed he [the judge] found Stowers' "nonverbal gestures and outbursts to be disruptive and improper regardless of content."
...
Just before the verdict was announced on June 29, Border called city Deputy Prosecutor Sean Sanada and Kwock to the bench and told them he didn't want a show of emotion by either side, according to a defense request to dismiss the contempt charge.
...
Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.
...

[Strel]

More details are needed to know what really happened. Judges do not hold people in contempt for single outbursts, generally. The press do a terrible job of reporting on legal matters.

Also, your thread title is not supported by the story. Thought you might like to know.

"Border declined to comment but indicated the court minutes reflected his actions. The minutes showed he found Stowers' "nonverbal gestures and outbursts to be disruptive and improper regardless of content."

Court minutes said Border later dropped the charge because he realized Stowers' trial lawyer, Deputy Public Defender Carmel Kwock, did not have time to tell Stowers the judge had ordered both sides not to show emotion when the verdict was announced."

A detail you apparently missed. He violated an order of the judge (or so the judge thought). Do you have any evidence on which to conclude that the judge held him in contempt for the outburst, or because he used the word "jesus"?

Would you be posting this story if he had said "allah akbar" and got held in contempt? I doubt it. I would instead be pointing out the flaws in the conclusions of a radical muslim instead of a fundamentalist Christian zealot.

"Just before the verdict was announced on June 29, Border called city Deputy Prosecutor Sean Sanada and Kwock to the bench and told them he didn't want a show of emotion by either side, according to a defense request to dismiss the contempt charge.

When Stowers made his remarks after the verdict was announced, the judge told him, "There will (be) no more of that," the papers said.

Stowers asked to approach the bench and apologize, but the judge told him he could not and ordered him to remain in the courtroom, the defense request said."

The contempt charge was dropped. So what is your problem exactly?

[Izdaari]

Was this judge right in what he did?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13898471/I don't know if that was religious discrimination or not. If he would've been held in contempt just the same for any loud outburst, regardless of the content, than it wasn't anti-Christian, but just a matter of courtroom decorum. Perhaps someone who's more familar with courtroom protocol, a lawyer perhaps, could enlighten us both?

[Strel]

I don't know if that was religious discrimination or not. If he would've been held in contempt just the same for any loud outburst, regardless of the content, than it wasn't anti-Christian, but just a matter of courtroom decorum. Perhaps someone who's more familar with courtroom protocol, a lawyer perhaps, could enlighten us both?


I just did. :D I can almost guarantee that this was not the first outburst from this defendant. Bench orders of this sort are not uncommon and are really a matter of security in some cases. In any case, someone has to win and someone has to lose...and when the verdict is announced, the bailiffs tense up and become very watchful of the parties and the audience for unpleasant reactions. Taming "celebrations" of victory helps to keep things under control. Such outbrusts are considered in very poor taste and lawyers are absolutely not supposed to act that way and to the extent they can they are expected to control their clients. This is especially important in criminal cases where the victims or their relatives may be in attendance.

This thread is just another example of how willing sub_zero is to bend the truth to fit his agenda. There is nothing at all in this story to display anything like an anti-Christian bias. In fact, the chances are very good indeed that the judge himself is a Christian. Most are in this country, after all.

[Izdaari]

I just did. :DThank you, Strel. I think we cross-posted. :cool:

[towski]

How come just about everything I see and read about the "War on Christians" turns out to be blown out of proportion, circumstantial, or flat out wrong? :confused:

[Strel]

How come just about everything I see and read about the "War on Christians" turns out to be blown out of proportion, circumstantial, or flat out wrong? :confused:


Because they apply the same kind of thought process that leads some of them to think the Earth is 6000 years old?

[towski]

Dig, set, spike, as they say...

[steveksux]

Must be a Wizard of Oz convention in Sub's town. Nothing but strawmen as far as the eye can see.

Randy

[Mickey Shane]

I would have sentenced him to 4 'Our Fathers' and 6 'Hail Marys'.
Here come da judge!

[julierep]

How come just about everything I see and read about the "War on Christians" turns out to be blown out of proportion, circumstantial, or flat out wrong? :confused:

Probably because half of the things accused of Christians is completley blown out of proportion. And most are probably just sick of hearing the whining by the ones doing the blown out proportion complaining.

[Dangerrmouse]

Probably because half of the things accused of Christians is completley blown out of proportion. ...


And the other half, which isn't?

[brainpan]

Probably because half of the things accused of Christians is completley blown out of proportion. And most are probably just sick of hearing the whining by the ones doing the blown out proportion complaining.The tu quoque is as popular as ever I see. We were presented with a deceptive thread. It contained outright, unabashed, right-in-your-face, lying. You either support lying or you do not. Which is it? Will you take the high road or lend tacit support to sub's undeniable lying? What would Jesus do?

[sub_zer0]

The tu quoque is as popular as ever I see. We were presented with a deceptive thread. It contained outright, unabashed, right-in-your-face, lying. You either support lying or you do not. Which is it? Will you take the high road or lend tacit support to sub's undeniable lying? What would Jesus do?

LOL, what lying has been done in this thread? I am simply asking a question.

[brainpan]

You characterized legitimate sanctions against a disruptive defendant as, and I quote, "Outlawing of Christianity." I can't imagine how you could possibly be more deceptive.

Then again, I should take that back. I guess you could have claimed the judge released hungry lions into the courtroom while screaming, "die Christian scum!" That would have been slightly more deceptive, but only slightly. Both scenerios are pure fantasy with aboslutely no basis in reality.

Look, you had to know someone was going to call you on this lie. Why didn't you spice up your story with hungry lions or some other really exciting invention?

[Democritus]

LOL, what lying has been done in this thread? I am simply asking a question.

Alright, then yes. The judge was right to do what he did. It had nothing to do with Christianity at all. Ergo the title of your thread is uninformed at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

[julierep]

The tu quoque is as popular as ever I see. We were presented with a deceptive thread. It contained outright, unabashed, right-in-your-face, lying. You either support lying or you do not. Which is it? Will you take the high road or lend tacit support to sub's undeniable lying? What would Jesus do?
I was simply responding to a general statement by Towski.

[sub_zer0]

You characterized legitimate sanctions against a disruptive defendant as, and I quote, "Outlawing of Christianity." I can't imagine how you could possibly be more deceptive.

You are reading into it to much.

[Dangerrmouse]

You are reading into it to much.

Which part of the lie did he get wrong?

[sub_zer0]

Which part of the lie did he get wrong?

The fact that he thought I posted this as an example of outlawing Christianity, when in reality I was referring to a general trend increasingly becoming popular around the world, specifically in the U.S.

I can see how on the surface it might look like I was, but I wasn't saying this proves it by any stretch of the mind.

[DRMIZER]

The fact that he thought I posted this as an example of outlawing Christianity, when in reality I was referring to a general trend increasingly becoming popular around the world, specifically in the U.S.

I can see how on the surface it might look like I was, but I wasn't saying this proves it by any stretch of the mind.The case against Christianity in this country is far to exadurated by the born-agains. But it works. . . .the wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the most oil. But that's all it is. It's a bandwagon everyone is jumping on. The only people not bored or incensed by this ranting are the Christians. . . Everyone else is sick of it.

[dittohead not!]

LOL, what lying has been done in this thread? I am simply asking a question.

Yes, you were. The question was:

Was this judge right in what he did?

Answer, no, he wasn't. If he hadn't been, he wouldn't have reversed himself.

The title of the thread, however, seems to evoke at the very least an attack on the separation of church and state, and at worst the beginning of a slippery slope leading to feeding Christians to the lions, ala the ancient Romans. In other words, it's the title that's overblown.