More Church-State Smudging in Florida

[Checkmite]

The Miami Daily Business Review reported Jan. 8 that Broward Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) member O’Neal Dozier has asked several candidates for Broward County judgeships inappropriate questions about their religious beliefs, such as whether they attend church and are “God-fearing.” Several of those judicial nominees complained about those types of questions.

...

In addition to grilling candidates about religion, Dozier has also been accused of questioning judicial candidates about their personal lives and their stands on controversial social issues. One woman said she was asked whether she could balance her duties as a single mother of twins with her duties as a judge. Another candidate was asked his opinions on the Supreme Court’s decision last summer that overturned a Texas sodomy law.

...

Dozier has repeatedly expressed an intolerant and theocratic approach to government. According to a report in the New Times Broward-Palm Beach late last year, Dozier told a Religious Right gathering, “We as Christians must take control of the government. We should be the ones in charge of the government.”

New Times said Dozier also observed that homosexuality is “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”

Holy Bicarbonate!

http://www.au.org/press/pr040114.htm

[c4ts]

Whatever happened to "do unto others as they would do unto you?"

[Suezoled]

They are, after all, the persecuted ones.

[c4ts]

The wisdom of the Bible is completely wasted on the Christians.

[aerosolben]

Dozier has asked several candidates for Broward County judgeships inappropriate questions about their religious beliefs, such as whether they attend church and are “God-fearing.”

Inappropriate.

In addition to grilling candidates about religion, Dozier has also been accused of questioning judicial candidates about their personal lives and their stands on controversial social issues. One woman said she was asked whether she could balance her duties as a single mother of twins with her duties as a judge.

This seems reasonable as presented. He is simply asking if she can make the time committment necessary for a judge. Unless the article has left out details.

Another candidate was asked his opinions on the Supreme Court’s decision last summer that overturned a Texas sodomy law.

This could be reasonable...

Dozier said such questions are appropriate. “I am totally against that ruling,” he told the newspaper. “We cannot have a judge who feels sodomy is OK.”

...but obviously is not in this case.

[Zero]

Next Christmas, can we nail this guy to a cross? It woulod probably make his family proud...

[shemp]

Why didn't he ask questions about cannibalism? The problem of cannibalism is rampant in the Florida judicial system, with numerous defendants and plaintiffs disappearing every week!

[evildave]

Well, as long as the lawyers aren't disappearing, I'm sure the state isn't too worried.

[espritch]

New Times said Dozier also observed that homosexuality is “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”

I love the way religious fundamentalists are always attributing their own personal biases to God. I don’t like X, therefore God doesn’t like X.

I don't know which bothers me more, the arrogance of claiming to speak for God, or the small mindedness required to worship a God as petty as the one they envision.

[Roadtoad]

I can't figure this out: this guy takes a job where it's his duty to enforce the Constitution. But, he then takes it upon himself to throw in his (note: not the Church's) interpretation of scripture.

See, if I am right about this, this is one of the reasons we had a very simple Constitution, and a a separation of Church and State. Because God means different things to different people, because there's so many different ways to interpret what the Bible says, you simply don't use it as the basis of your government. You recognize it's there, and it has an influence on your people, but you establish an appropriate secular order as a means of directing that influence in a positive way, and directing people towards an affirmative way of life. You establish a strong Civil order, rather than try and create a Social one.

But this is not happening with O'Neal Dozier. Instead what's happening is that he's trying to impose his religious dogma on the rest of his community.

And he should be voted out. Like, now. As in, recall.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I can't figure this out: this guy takes a job where it's his duty to enforce the Constitution. But, he then takes it upon himself to throw in his (note: not the Church's) interpretation of scripture.


It happens because, even though one of the Founding Fathers actually wrote a letter explicitly stating that the First Amendment establishes Seperation of Church and State (and that letter is where the phrase comes from), since the exact words "Seperation of Church and State" don't appear in the Constitution itself, it's obvious that the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be a Seperation of Church and State, even if they explicitly said they did in letters.

Understand?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by aerosolben
This seems reasonable as presented. He is simply asking if she can make the time committment necessary for a judge. Unless the article has left out details.
From the context, I dont see what the significance of that question is.

The paranoid side of my skepticism picks up on some unspoken sexism, its not something I would very likely appreciate.

Of course, it may as well be paranoia, the question could be nothing more than bulk to fill the time, it may as well be no more significant than "Do you eat healthy meals at least three times a day".

[Zero]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


It happens because, even though one of the Founding Fathers actually wrote a letter explicitly stating that the First Amendment establishes Seperation of Church and State (and that letter is where the phrase comes from), since the exact words "Seperation of Church and State" don't appear in the Constitution itself, it's obvious that the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be a Seperation of Church and State, even if they explicitly said they did in letters.

Understand? Apparently, the Founding Dead White Guys didn't intend slaves to be free or women to vote, either...do we really have to go by exactly what they would have wanted? Washington would have probably wanted some cocaine...

[ceo_esq]

Well, we definitely don't want God to vomit. The consequences for life on earth could be grave.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


It happens because, even though one of the Founding Fathers actually wrote a letter explicitly stating that the First Amendment establishes Seperation of Church and State (and that letter is where the phrase comes from), since the exact words "Seperation of Church and State" don't appear in the Constitution itself, it's obvious that the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be a Seperation of Church and State, even if they explicitly said they did in letters.

Understand? I have plenty of respect for Jefferson's view. However, the particular Founding Father you're referring to was not one of the framers of the Constitution, and the letter was written long after the First Amendment was drafted.

If today you wanted to discover the intention behind an ambiguous piece of Congressional legislation written more than a decade ago, I doubt your first step would be to solicit the opinion of the fellow who was the U.S. ambassador in Paris at the time in question, no matter how eminent, erudite and well-connected he was. It's just not the most authoritative reference.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by aerosolben

This seems reasonable as presented. He is simply asking if she can make the time committment necessary for a judge. Unless the article has left out details.


I don't know the regs in terms of this, but such a question is absolutely forbidden at a normal job interview. It is sexual discrimination.

Would they ask a male judge the same question?

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I don't know the regs in terms of this, but such a question is absolutely forbidden at a normal job interview. It is sexual discrimination.

Would they ask a male judge the same question?

Why wouldn't they? Men can be single parents, too.

I see no sexual discrimination, as presented. Maybe parental discrimination, but I don't think that's illegal.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by aerosolben


Why wouldn't they? Men can be single parents, too.


But they don't typically ask such questions of men. They could, but they don't.



I see no sexual discrimination, as presented. Maybe parental discrimination, but I don't think that's illegal.

Even aside from the gender issue, it is still inappropriate. Family status cannot be used as a factor in hiring. The appropriate approach is to ask if there are any factors that would prevent the candidate from being able to carry out the work that will be required. This would include family responsibilities, but also would include other things that might prevent the person from working.

The fact that someone is a single parent with two kids is only relevent if that prevents them from being able to do the work. That is what you need to know as an employer. You cannot decide that someone automatically will not be able to do the work because they have kids.

[Monketey Ghost]

"In addition to grilling candidates about religion, Dozier has also been accused of questioning judicial candidates about their personal lives and their stands on controversial social issues. One woman said she was asked whether she could balance her duties as a single mother of twins with her duties as a judge."


I put this to several women in my house and they all idependantly confirmed they'd be offended greatly by such a question.

As one put it, "If I committed myself to the study and hard thought that's required of a judge, isn't it obvious I've balanced the responsibilities in my life? It sounds like a question for a teenage McDonald's hopeful."

[Zero]

Originally posted by No Answers
"In addition to grilling candidates about religion, Dozier has also been accused of questioning judicial candidates about their personal lives and their stands on controversial social issues. One woman said she was asked whether she could balance her duties as a single mother of twins with her duties as a judge."


I put this to several women in my house and they all idependantly confirmed they'd be offended greatly by such a question.

As one put it, "If I committed myself to the study and hard thought that's required of a judge, isn't it obvious I've balanced the responsibilities in my life? It sounds like a question for a teenage McDonald's hopeful." Well, if the woman shows up for the interview with 4 kids in tow, it would be an appropriate question. :p

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by No Answers
"In addition to grilling candidates about religion, Dozier has also been accused of questioning judicial candidates about their personal lives and their stands on controversial social issues. One woman said she was asked whether she could balance her duties as a single mother of twins with her duties as a judge."


I put this to several women in my house and they all idependantly confirmed they'd be offended greatly by such a question.

As one put it, "If I committed myself to the study and hard thought that's required of a judge, isn't it obvious I've balanced the responsibilities in my life? It sounds like a question for a teenage McDonald's hopeful."

According to one website, it is illegal to use such a question for hiring in 19 states. In the states where it is not illegal, it is still considered to be an inappropriate question for a job interview.

Apparently it is an illegal question for military interviews.

Do a search for "Inappropriate Interview Questions" and you will find it addressed from a wide variety of perspectives.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


It happens because, even though one of the Founding Fathers actually wrote a letter explicitly stating that the First Amendment establishes Seperation of Church and State (and that letter is where the phrase comes from), since the exact words "Seperation of Church and State" don't appear in the Constitution itself, it's obvious that the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be a Seperation of Church and State, even if they explicitly said they did in letters.

Understand?

Well, actually, I do, and I'd even be sympathetic to a degree to it, but not as practiced by O'Neal Dozier. His goal, from what I'm reading, is to weed out "undesirables" from the bench. This apparently would include atheists, single parents, anyone voting Democratic or Liberal, someone who's gay, or anyone who disagrees with Dozier's narrow definition of what God wants.

As such, this man is not fit for his position. He (no one else) has made himself to be a bigot. If he were pulling this crap in California, he'd find himself on the wrong end of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it would be very unlikely that the Supreme Court would overrule them.

It's one thing for someone to practice their faith. I even applaud it, regardless of my own beliefs, when it's done publicly. I think it's great when communities have publicly funded manger scenes, menorahs, stars and crescents, and even great wheels and images of Brahman. (I would prefer it if it were privately funded in public spaces, but I don't see that happening, and certainly not by people with any degree of respectability. Remember the Cincinnati Cross put up by the Klan?) As long as there's an effort to allow others the same recognition of their beliefs or lack therein. Respect for the beliefs of others is far preferrable to the absolute absence of any recognition at all.

But it is something else entirely when you have a jerk like Dozier ramming his beliefs down the throats of anyone who comes before him, seeking a judicial post. This is why, I suspect, you have the courts moving towards the removal of public recognition. You simply cannot do this when you have people using it to bludgeon others into silence.

Maybe it's me, but I see a threat to an independent judiciary in this sort of behavior.

[Roadtoad]

...And by the way: I'm not even a woman, and I'm offended by the question asked of the candidate with twins. What sort of a barbaric question is that!?! If she made it through law school, and is a practicing attorney already, isn't this an idiotic question?

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
But they don't typically ask such questions of men. They could, but they don't.
I would suspect so, but since no mention of sexual dicrimination was made in the article, I did not assume it.

Even aside from the gender issue, it is still inappropriate. Family status cannot be used as a factor in hiring.
I absolutely consider it inappropriate. I was merely wondering if it was illegal. That does seem to be the case, so I won't argue the point.

I was also contesting that it was sexual discrimination, which I still don't think it is, as there are seperate laws to deal with familial questions.

The fact that someone is a single parent with two kids is only relevent if that prevents them from being able to do the work.
To be fair, he did ask if she was capable, and did not instantly assume she was not (AFAWK). Not that that makes it okay.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
If he were pulling this crap in California, he'd find himself on the wrong end of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it would be very unlikely that the Supreme Court would overrule them.Although you should rarely bet on a 9th Circuit ruling being upheld by the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit's reversal rate usually hovers somewhere above 80% - the highest in the nation - and its decisions are frequently slapped down unanimously.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Although you should rarely bet on a 9th Circuit ruling being upheld by the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit's reversal rate usually hovers somewhere above 80% - the highest in the nation - and its decisions are frequently slapped down unanimously.

You're probably right, but I figured this was one even the 9th Circuit couldn't screw up.

[Ladewig]

asked several candidates for Broward County judgeships inappropriate questions about their religious beliefs, such as whether they attend church and are “God-fearing.

I would have responded, "Ah, I see. You are testing my knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI expressly forbids any religious test for public office. Would you like me to cite case law or do you want to move on to the next question?"

Broward Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) member O’Neal Dozier

And none of the other commission members told Dozier to limit his questions to legal ones?

[jimmygun]

If god can keep from puking everytime some televangelist bilks an old lady out of her pension I would think he could hold back the flow when two consenting adults express their love or desire in what ever way they deem fit.