Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

to Anon at 05:49
If you are going to be technical, there is no such thing as 'Christian law' (see eg: Romans 6:14, 1 Corinthians 9:20, Galatians 2:21) and the only 'rules' that apply to all Christians are those set out in Acts 15:28-29. I know that James 5:12 suggests that it is contrary to Christian principles to take an oath, but IMHO that is a misreading of the text by divorcing it from its context - see http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Do-Not-Swear

The freemasonry issue is altogether different, and from my experience I simply do not believe that any judge who is a freemason would give a decision in favour of a fellow freemason simply because of the freemasonry connection. It is all very well to surmise otherwise, but without evidence it is simply surmise based on having pre-judged the issue (which, if you prefer straight talking, is prejudice). What does the judge do if, as you suggest is frequently the case, the lawyers on both sides are freemasons?
I do not doubt that freemasonry is a religion (and one that IMHO is incompatible with being a Christian other than in a purely nominal sense), but why do you suppose that judges who are freemasons do not set that aside when judging and make their decisions on the evidence and the law, just like Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc judges?

Your details

Cancel