She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.

She has been arguing that, as a Christian, she should not have to follow state rules about judicial impartiality.

A judge who cannot separate their religious bias of what is right and wrong from their role as a judge (the impartial arbiter of law as set forth through the political process), isn’t just saying the separation of church and state shouldn’t apply to marriage. They’re also saying they cannot legitimately sit as a judge because they cannot keep personal bias separate from their role as a fair and neutral arbiter. She’s telling on herself.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    11 hours ago

    Well, the founders definitely knew that. The Inquisition was still on in their lifetimes and many of them knew of the atrocities that xtians carried out on each other in the colonies.

    Of course, lots of xtians will claim that there is no freedom FROM religion (just OF religion, LOL) and that the founders meant for this to be a xtian nation. Which is a nonsensical statement. What kind of “freedom” is it to only pick among various (Protestant) sects of xtianity? And why didn’t the founders make any mention of their precious Jesus Christ anywhere in the Constitution?

    The first amendment requires freedom FROM religion, too. But warped mush brains like this so-called judge think the nation should not be secular, but instead should cater to special snowflakes like her, just because of her chosen lifestyle.