Colombia’s Constitutional Court says religious precepts can’t be basis for court rulings

[rug]

By Associated Press, Published: September 19AP

BOGOTA, Colombia — Colombia’s Constitutional Court has told a lower court judge that religious precepts cannot be used as the basis for a ruling or other decisions, issuing a directive that applies to all judicial officers in the country.

The high court said quotations from religious texts cannot be used in legal arguments or judgments to directly support the reasoning for a decision. It did say religious quotations can be used to explain a point of view.

In a directive issued in June but only made public Wednesday, the justices made a point of saying the directive was issued for a labor court judge in the southwestern city of Cali, but legal experts said Wednesday that the Constitutional Court’s findings apply to all judges and prosecutors in similar cases.

Judicial authorities “are obliged to respect the principle of secularism that characterizes the Colombian state,” said the Constitutional Court, which is the guardian of Colombia’s constitution. Decisions “must be devoid of any expression suggesting a bias based on religious beliefs or personal convictions of the judicial officer,” it added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/colombias-constitutional-court-says-religious-precepts-cant-be-basis-for-court-rulings/2012/09/19/652fcc48-02b1-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

[cbayer]

1. The ruling was about a lower court's using a bible quote in a decision, but

I can't find this quote in the bible.

Anyone else?

In the case of justice, it shouldn’t even favor the poor

[rug]

7. Here's the Court's website.

No habla espanol.

[cbayer]

8. Me, neither. Maybe the quoted biblical reference is just a bad translation?

[rug]

9. I haven't seen the opinion but I doubt it.

Since Colombia is culturally Catholic, it wouldn't surprise me to see citations to religious works. I can't tell if the lower court relied on those citations in making a decision or simply used them as examples.

Here is an interesting case decided by the Fourth Circuit a couple of months ago. The appeal was based on the judge citing the Bible at sentencing. The Foutrth Circuit held that, since the scripture was not the basis for the sentence, the appeal was denied.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/117389.P.pdf

page 1: Petitioners appeal from the district court’s denial of habeas
corpus relief. They contend that, at their sentencing for armed
robbery of the Sunday worship services at a North Carolina
church, the state trial judge impermissibly made references to
religion, thereby violating their rights to due process.

page 13: To the extent that the judge quoted from the Bible,
there is, as the MAR court found, no credible argument that
he impermissibly rested the chosen term of imprisonment on
scripture and not on the North Carolina General Statutes.

[cleanhippie]

2. Well, at least SOMEBODY gets it.

[KansDem]

3. It's a sad day when Colombians rely on enlightened thought...

...moreso than Americans.

[cbayer]

4. Does US law permit this?

[KansDem]

5. "US law" is tending to favor religionists more and more

Consider the recent Supreme Court ruling about ACA. It narrowly upheld the law in a 5-4 ruling. Why so close?

Also, Supreme Court rulings have upheld discrimination based on religion:

Landmark Supreme Court ruling a 'resounding win' for religious groups

Applause and criticism
Notre Dame Law Professor Rick Garnett said the decision was a “resounding win for religious liberty,” and “one of the Court’s most important church-state decisions in decades.”

“This case is highly significant because it reminds us all that the separation of church and state is an important mechanism for protecting the liberty of all – believers and nonbelievers alike,” he said in a statement.

Others saw the ruling as a step backward. The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the decision affirms a right of religious groups to ignore antidiscrimination laws in some cases.

“Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology – no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be – have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces,” Mr. Lynn said in a statement.

Finally, take a look at a note of US currency. One side says, "This note is legal tender..." and the other side read "In God we trust." Kind of making God "legal," isn't it?

[cbayer]

6. Actually I think that secular groups are successfully challenging a lot of separation issues

and often doing so successfully. I anticipate that they will accumulate more successes and the trend towards drawing a brighter line will continue. One problem is that legislative bodies have been able to act without much challenge in the last 10 or more years, but that is changing.

I'm not sure how the ACA ruling has anything to do with religion or the imposition of religion into the law.

The case you cite is interesting and has been discussed in this group previously. While there is reason to be concerned about it, the Supreme Court pretty strictly ruled precisely down the line of separation, upholding the 1st amendment. I'm not sure how one can read it as discrimination based on religion.

FWIW, I don't think god has any place on the currency, but this isn't about currency. It's about using biblical references in justifying court rulings. If that happens here, I am unaware of it.

[cleanhippie]

10. Indeed they are, and getting a lot of pushback from moderate/liberal Christians in the process.

Here is that chance for common ground again, cbayer. Will you join us?