OOC: I really enjoy this thread. Krsta, you're a very good writer.
IC:Okay. Here's another:
Judge Richard Deni v. State, heard in 1813. This case is considered a landmark case, as it greatly broadened TurtleShroom's definition of "freedom of religion", and served as the framework for greater religious tolerance in the country.
Judgeship in TurtleShroom has long been an easy status to aquire. A simple test on TurtleShroom law, a background check, and a few other requsites are needed. That is for the position of
bureaucrat-judge. Actual presiding judges require further training and a license to sit on the bench.
Any civillian judge on the generic circuit, bureaucrat or actual, are required, at all times when not at home, to wear the regalia assigned to their position. In TurtleShroom, that's a floor-length black robe and a golden pectoral cross necklace, irregardless of species.
The country, having been founded by Puritans and the turtles and mushrooms during the 1790s, had just started off. Puritanism wasn't going to dissolve into more moderate doctrines until 1825.
The case occured in the deep southern swamplands of TurtleShroom. The Honorable Richard Deni, a strong atheist and a mushroom, objected to having to wear a pectoral cross with his robes, claiming it as a violation of his Constitutional freedom of religion. While TurtleShroom had a state faith, he pointed out that atheism is a legal doctrine in TurtleShroom and thus recieves all of the benefits of TurtleShroom's strict religious protection, including the right to reject items that violate the moral codes of the faith.
On these grounds, he removed it and wore the robes alone. For a while, this went unnoticed, because none of his peers really cared. It wasn't until an inspector from what was then TurtleShroom's largest city, Centriole, came down to Deni's court and noticed that he wasn't wearing the necklace. The inspector said that he was violating TurtleShroom law and its dress code, and could not preside on the bench without the pectoral cross.
As history books would tell you, Puritans saw things that brought attention to the user and not the Judeo-Christian God, even fiction or drama, were sinful and thus banned. This, plus what was made above, were the citations for the order.
His town, a sleepy religious community with nine little churches and a population of 100, had long respected Richard despite his convictions. The mushroom was the town's only atheist. Richard was a hero to the community and well-loved by other judges and by the court of apepals he answered to, even though they strongly disagreed with his convictions.
His record was spotless and he was considered one of the most neutral judges of his time. Even the most hardcore fundamentalists had to commend him for his tolerance and deep respect for others. He was as moralistic as any Christian of the day, in support of Prohibition and the decency laws, or simply, most everything TurtleShroom believed in...
except the state faith. He later softened on that, seeing that people wouldn't be forced to convert, and happily lived his days as an atheist... until this.
Judge Richard sued the state for overstepping the grounds of both Constitutional religious freedom
and for using the state faith (it was then Puritanical Christianity) in an unconstitutional, invasive manner.
Taken the nearest court (eighty miles away), the case quickly became a legal battle of outright wits. Both sides tried all they knew to persuade the judge, a rookie and his first case, to agree with them in application of law. TurtleShroom's law had yet to be as coded as it is today, so judicial fiat was very strong.
It took about a month for the judge to decide his case. He ruled in favor of the state. Richard appealed.
Three months passed for the next agonizing trial. In a split 2-1 decision, they ruled for the state, too. So tight was religious conviction that the Richard was losing by that alone. Distraught but relentless, he appealed again, and lost, and then, at last, came to the Supreme Court of TurtleShroom.
Richard's hometown poured out their wallets. They sold most of what they owned and sent it for Ruchard's legal fees and counsel. They began to plea for the Court to listen to Richard. They even prayed for him, believing that a man must choose Jesus, and that He can't be forced, lest they turn away even more.
This and more were argued by Richard, who represented himself. The opposition put up a strong fight. The country was rocked by the trial, and everyone took sides.
At last, after a year of hearings, the Supreme Court of TurtleShroom, in a 4-1 decision, ruled in favor
to Richard. In a majority opinion, this was what was written.
Supreme Court of TurtleShroom majority opinion wrote:Jesus emphasized peace, tolerance, and love to all. He said that everyone was His neighbor, not just fellow believers, but those we deem unlovable, like witches or ballroom dancers. Richard may not believe in our Lord, but we find no fault in him.
He has argued on the basis of our state Constitution. As we all know, Atheism is not Pastafarianism, Satanism, Discordianism, or a parody religion. He's not a witch, either. Therefore, like any legit faith, it should be guarenteed the moral protections promised to all faithful in TurtleShroom.
The court rules, based on the Honorable Deni's arguments, that Atheism is indeed a religion, and therefore, forcing this mushroom to wear a cross defies his religious beliefs. We would be hypocritacl to force a religion on another. Jesus wants people to choose Him, and forcing Him on people drives them away.
This is why we have sided with Richard. Our Constituion established Puritanical Christianity as the sole state faith, but also emphasized that no religion could be forced. The state faith recieves funds and recognition. While they do hold power, here, they do not.
Jones Found made it absolutely clear when he said that all believers of all doctrines should have their faiths protected and sanctioned from oppression. We don't force Islamics to take off their veils, nor others from doing their thing. We would not be acting in God's favor if we oppressed this mushroom simply because he denies Him. Our Lord is a Choice, not a mandate.
The state ahs no right to force this upon Richard. The debate on his immortal soul is not a question of this Court to rule. That is his responsibility.
In conclusion, the Honorable Richard Deni was acting completely within Constituional bounds in refusing to wear the holy cross, and, as an Atheist, forcing him to wear such an item would be invading his freedoms. As he has done not one illegal sin as bound in law, and has never drank in his life, there is not a single reason for this mushroom to stand before us.
Judge Richard, we commend you for your persistance, and while we all hope you'll find Jesus, we assure that if you ever wear a cross, that'll be by your will. We find all favor in Judge Richard's argument. He does not have to wear the Cross, or any other religious item on his robes.
Richard v. State was a landmark case. In the coming years, other institutions would try and forbid other religions from wearing or expressing their beliefs, such as an Islamic judge wearing a crescent instead of a cross (
Abdullah v. State, ruled 5-0 for Abdullah). This case would be cited again and again in saying that Christianity can't be forced on a citizen, and that no creature could be made to follow a faith they do not believe in.
In 2009, the TurtleShroom Congress passed a concurrent resolution honoring Richard for his perserverence for tolerance.
An enormous granite statue of Richard Deni, in judge's robe, with a pectoral cross at his feet, stands outside of Centriole's courthouse. Funded and erected by the TurtleShroom Atheist and Agnostic Club, the statue reads "DEDICATED TO JUDGE RICHARD DENI AND HIS DEDICATION TO TOLERATION AND PROTECTION OF ATHEISM IN TURTLESHROOM. THANK YOU."
If this case went before the PCJ in the early 1800s- assuming it was heard at all -what would have happened? Would Richard have won, as he did here? Would it have been extremely difficult, and would it have been considered "landmark", as it was here?