Report comment

Chris Baker
"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? "
That makes the secular point very nicely. Christians and Muslims, at least, are, supposedly, bound to abide by their religious principles, regardless of any secular consequences to them. Otherwise they are hypocrites. Neither Christ nor Mohammed said "Of course, the 'No thieving, lying etc only applies in your personal life, not when you are acting in an official capacity where some casuistry will allow you to let the dishonesty through'. It seems to be, from the activities of 'business', ie, people acting in a business capacity, which have got all but the rich into the mess we're in, that the Christian Church has, with few exceptions, sold out to the various subsidiaries of the Mammon conglomerate on that one. When intelligent people or, at least, Christians take vociferous exception to Muslim fundamentalists (not terrorists) having the aim of establishing, without violence, a worldwide State operating on Muslim principles, it always amazes me that they have, apparently, forgotten that that is exactly what Christ said his followers should do (Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ... to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Matt 28:19-20) and the bloody way they went about it for centuries.
Not to practise what you preach was strong grounds for social condemnation when I grew up, so commending judges for it here seems to be a pretty strong argument for a rule of law based on human, ie secular, principles, whose validity can be argued without reference to any 'eternal' authority.