Atheist group says Texas judge 'crossed the line' when she handed a Bible to Amber Guyger

[sarisataka]

Atheist group says Texas judge 'crossed the line' when she handed a Bible to Amber Guyger

A national atheist group has filed a formal complaint with the state of Texas after a judge in a Dallas court gave a Bible to former police officer Amber Guyger who was convicted of murdering her neighbor.

The gesture by Texas District Judge Tammy Kemp, who also suggested the Bible could change Guyger's life, came at the end of an emotional sentencing hearing this week. Guyger received a 10-year prison sentence for fatally shooting Botham Jean, an unarmed man in a Dallas apartment she had mistaken for her own. 

Kemp left the bench to approach and hug the tearful Guyger, handing her what she said was one of the personal Bibles she used every day.

"This is your job for the next month," Kemp told Guyger. "It says right here. John 3:16. And this is where you start. 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life ...'"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/04/atheist-group-complains-texas-judge-tammy-kemp-bible-amber-guyger/3862737002/

Have to admit being conflicted about this. I wonder if any group would complain is the judge gave her a Torah, Quran or book of Sutras? Would people show the same support the judge is getting for her action? Should a judge give any personal item to the accused/ convicted while in session?

[jberryhill]

1. What?

"I wonder if any group would complain is the judge gave her a Torah, Quran or book of Sutras?"

Yes, any American should object to that. The government should not be promoting religion. That's pretty basic to being an American.

Judges, teachers, cops, etc., should not be handing out religious tracts in the course of doing their jobs. Period. Again, that is pretty basic to being an American. No one engaged in the administration of government services should be promoting religion.

"Should a judge give any personal item to the accused/ convicted while in session?"

No, a judge should not.

The judge is not there in a personal capacity. The judge is there to administer the rules of the court on behalf of the state.

Have we actually gotten so used to Trumpian politics of personality that we no longer recognize that state offices are not venues for personal ego gratification?

It is profoundly unprofessional and inappropriate.

[exboyfil]

3. Said it better than me

[hlthe2b]

8. Judges are human too. As long as they adjudicate in a completely professional and judicious manner

I'm fine if they show a bit of personal feeling/emotion at the end of the trial.

Their faith did not appear to influence how this judge ran the trial or the sentencing, so I am not willing to make a big deal about it (and yes, that would have included offering, instead of a bible a Torah or Quran if that had personal meaning to them. As long as there was no coercion attached and the defendant was free to accept or not as she wishes, I just don't see this as worthy of the controversy.

[jberryhill]

13. So, you are down with cops giving out gospel tracts....

...as long as it doesn't "appear to influence" how they do their job?

Where are you even getting this "appearance of influence" rule pertaining to government officials using their position to promote religion?

What is someone supposed to do when that happens? Say, "Oh, fuck no, I don't want that?" As if.

[Ms. Toad]

35. Promotion of religious beliefs by a state employee,

especially one in a postion of power, is a clear violation of the first amendment establishment clause.

Personal feeling is fine - promoting religion (or being antagonistic to religion) is not. Whatever you personally feel, legally it is not a gray area.

[LiberalFighter]

45. Judges have no business getting off the bench and approaching either party

whether to give them a bible or a hug.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. It's an inherently coercive situation.

[hlthe2b]

50. She'd already been sentenced, so no.

[Ms. Toad]

77. Aside from anything else, sentencing is not the end of a criminal trial.

The next step is for the court to issue a judgment of conviction.

Even after the judgment is issued, the defendant is entitled to make a variety of appeals to the court (among them: a new trial, a post-conviction petition for relief)

Even beyond the further interaction with the trial court in its jurisdiction, an appellate court may remand the case back to the trial court (same judge) for either resentencing, reconsideration of a particular issue, or an entirely new trial.

So yes (in addition to power dynamics - which is inherently coercive), the judge literally still holds her fate in her hands until her appeals are exhausted.

[d_r]

65. I actually

Agree with you based on what you just said and generally I don't think I would I have agreed with you so there you go.

[sarisataka]

11. I was asking about other religious tracts

To question more those who support her actions. If it were a non-Christian text would there be complaints from fundamental groups saying the judge overstepped?

I do agree she should not have offered a religious item; that is intruding on church/state separation when done by a government representative acting in an official capacity.

[jberryhill]

17. If it was a non-Christian religion

She'd be out on her ass yesterday.

[JonLP24]

23. Have you heard of Freedom From Religion?

They are in favor of seperation of church and state. They do this kind of thing all the time.

[sarisataka]

29. I have heard of them, it is not their actions I questioned

It is what other groups would have objected had the judge given an item of a different religion.

[JonLP24]

31. Christians are the majority so they aren't being discriminated against in the US

There is hypocrisy everywhere but myself I try my best to be consistent. No racism, sexism LGBT discrimination, religious intolerance, anti-semitism, etc.

I have had not particularly religious at all people but believed in God immediately have red flags and one say "el Diablo" when I identified as non religious or didn't want to go to church and I explain why. So no discrimination against atheists either

[Docreed2003]

28. +1

Absolutely spot on

[tblue37]

39. THANK YOU!! nt

[exboyfil]

2. Hugging her and giving her a Bible while in Court

is inappropriate. She has plenty of access to the felon in private (call her into chambers after the trial). I don't have an issue with giving her a Bible in that case. I am not one to hug others though, but whatever.

She is our civil representative in the courtroom.

[LuckyLib]

32. And the victim's brother hugged the defendant. What a

reality show this was. Completely inappropriate. Top to bottom.

[exboyfil]

33. I don't have nearly as much an issue with that

Since he asked for permission. I do think it is bad form to allow the victim's family such close access to the felon.

A family friend gave the man who killed her husband while drag racing a Bible after the trial. I did not have an issue with it. I don't think she hugged them though. She showed much more grace than I would have.

[RhodeIslandOne]

74. There seem to be judges who relish high profile cases

Like the one in the Casey Anthony case.

They all want to be the next Judge Judy or god forbid Judge Janine Pirro.

[Loki Liesmith]

78. What the victim's brother did was fine.

You don’t get a vote on that.

[hlthe2b]

4. The was nothing coerced about it--not part of sentencing or any requirement expectation so

while it was a personal interjection of the judge's faith, I am not sure it violates anything.

And normally I'm pretty determined to keep the wall between church and state, but this is probably not a clear cut issue to me.

[jberryhill]

6. "a personal interjection of the judge's faith"

Okay, so when someone gets arrested, and the cops decide they'll include the arrestee in a prayer circle, that's just "a personal interjection of the cops' faith"?

Or when a teacher decides to lead a class in prayer, that's just "a personal interjection of the teacher's faith"?

Government offices are not platforms for public officials to engage in "personal interjections of faith", whatever that is supposed to mean.

When I go to the DMV to get my driver's license renewed, I'm not interested in having the clerk engage in a "personal interjection" of his or her superstitions or rituals, whatever they may be. They are certainly entitled to them by right, but the notion of secular government is that we leave those things at home.

[hlthe2b]

12. None of these happened. No strawman arguments for me today, jberryhill. Take it elsewhere.

[jberryhill]

15. It's the principle

And, no, I'm comfy right here.

This is a perfectly appropriate place to discuss the First Amendment.

[hlthe2b]

18. Not with me. I don't buy into changing to strawman arguments as a tactic. It is dishonest BYE

[jberryhill]

19. In other words...

You are not going to cite to any actual legal principle concerning when it is, or is not, appropriate for government officials to be handing out religious literature in the course of performing their official duties, other than "It's okay when I like it."

[hlthe2b]

21. NO "in other words" Strawman substitution arguments are dishonest. Again, I have no desire

to engage with those who use such tactics.

[jberryhill]

22. You said "none of these happened"

Actually, all of these things have happened, and they are all wrong. Your contention that they did not happen, or are "strawmen" is factually incorrect.

I have no desire to have a government in which people feel entitled to promote their religious beliefs. In fact, I have a RIGHT to such a government.

It is not a "strawman" to ask when it is, or is not, appropriate for government officials to distribute religious literature in the course of their duties.

Why not simply tell me the legal precedent you have in mind which makes this particular example okay, and all of the others not okay.

[hatrack]

42. . . .

[FreeState]

67. The op you replied to ends with a straw man question

But yet you posted.

[tblue37]

41. I can't imagine ever being on trial for murder, but as an atheist, I would be incredibly

holder if any officer of the court--especially the judge!--tried to force their religion on me, especially at such a stressful and vulnerable time.

And suppose the defendant happened to be a believer in another, non biblical, faith tradition?

I am offended by this.

[hlthe2b]

44. because

you assume malign intent. I do not.

I've dealt with followers of all kinds of religions trying to offer their own well-intentioned, yet misplaced pamphlets and writings and philosophy-- especially during the hell-on-earth last 90 days of my Father's life. Jewish, all denominations of Christian, Muslim, Hindu--you name it. I took each with the grace I believed was behind the offering. ICU nurses were baffled at the small pile ("altar" ) of myriad items and undoubtedly wondered what on earth?... As my sister and I were at most agnostic, it was one of those few episodes of humor I can remember from that sad time and episode. I took it as kindly people expressing their hopes for me and my father in the only way they really knew how.

Not everyone is out to convert you and sometimes that little bit of grace and benefit-of-the-doubt can make all the difference. Their religious materials brought me no comfort, but the thought behind them surely DID.

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. It seems to me there have been cases over the years where a police officer had done just that.

and the cops decide they'll include the arrestee in a prayer circle, that's just "a personal interjection of the cops' faith"?

Or something similar. I seem to recall a State Trooper in Indiana that insisted the people he pulled over participate in a prayer on the side of the road before he would hand them the ticket and let them be on their way.

Such behavior, because it is cloaked in ancient Middle Eastern religion, is seen as rather innocuous by large segments of Americans. Behavior that is absurd on its face, and as you point out, completely inappropriate for a public officials during the course of discharging their duties.

"If you are convinced that when you pour syrup on your pancakes in the morning and utter some code words, your pancakes turn into the actual flesh of Elvis Presley, you would be considered to be crazy, but if you do essentially the same thing using wine and a wafer, and invoke Jesus, you're just a good Catholic" - Sam Harris.

[jberryhill]

25. I took every example from actual cases

However, my interlocutor insists they are "strawmen" instead of pulled from the big basket of "just a personal interjection of faith" by government officials.

[Arkansas Granny]

5. This doesn't really mean much to me one way or the other. The trial was over, the sentence had been

handed down. Unless there is some reason to believe that the judge was somehow prejudiced in the case and was not impartial, I don't see what there is to complain about.

[jberryhill]

9. So, when you get a traffic ticket, and the cop hands you one of these....

...that's okay. As long as it is after the ticket is written?

[meadowlander]

53. If she was in the courtroom and wearing her robes she was "on the clock".

Handing out a bible in Court is a reason to believe that the judge is somehow prejudiced and is not impartial.

If the judge felt compelled to say something, she should have visited the defendant in jail afterwards in plain clothes. She should not, in the insignia of her office, have been promoting religion.

I would hope we could hold a judge to the same standard that we hold McDonalds employees who can be fired for social postings about smoking weed if they affiliate themselves in any way with their employer.

[Caliman73]

7. The complaint is valid regardless.

It isn't about Christianity it is about promoting religion in the capacity of a government official. At most the judge should have said, "I hope that you use your time in prison constructively and really exam what lead you to act the way that you did."

Guyger doesn't need religion. She needs to develop an understanding of what attitudes and schemas lead her to think shooting an unarmed man eating ice cream on his couch, was acceptable.

[Goodheart]

10. The atheist group is correct.

[Owl]

38. Yes indeed.

[JonLP24]

14. Freedom from Religion probably would

They are consistent in their church and state stance. We have mostly Christians in the US.

[Beringia]

16. I saw that on twitter

Link to tweet

Someone wrote this:

3ChicsPolitico

Oct 3
Judge Tammy Kemp hugged Botham Jean’s family first. My friend lives in Dallas and knows the judge. My friend says she’s a Delta and is a deaconess at her church. The Spirit of God was at work and the judge recognized the moving of the Holy Spirit.

[msongs]

24. if the judge was on the clock sounds like grounds for a mistrial nt

[MineralMan]

26. I'm an atheist of 50+ years, and I don't mind if she gave her a Bible.

It doesn't matter to me, one way or another. When she gets to prison, someone will offer her a Bible, too. Heck, I have several of the things, although I don't open them much any more. It's too easy to find what I'm looking for online these days.

The Bible is ubiquitous in the United States. Christianity is the dominant religion here. People should be familiar with the primary scripture of that religion, whatever their belief or non-belief might be.

I'm not troubled by this at all.

[luvs2sing]

30. For me, it is not so much the specifics of a bible..

as it is the general breach of professional boundaries.

You are right that she will no doubt be given a bible in prison. Religion is huge in prisons, and many who volunteer are from churches and other religious groups. Religion gets many people through their sentence and helps them adjust to life outside. I’m personally not always comfortable with that, but I can’t argue that it has helped more than a few people who I know and have stayed in touch with once they were released.

[luvs2sing]

27. It boggles my mind.

I have a friend who is, like Judge Kemp, a judge, an African-American woman, and a very devout Christian. I know she takes her job seriously and also cares about the futures of those who come before her. Her focus is on the rehabilitation part of “rehabilitation and correction”. I also know she doesn’t hug defendants or hand out bibles.

I also volunteer at a women’s prison. My judge friend is also part of the volunteer organization, and that is public knowledge. From time to time a resident will ask if I know my friend, and when I reply that I do, the response is invariably to tell me how grateful they are for her kindness and wisdom when they were sentenced to prison. I know she has touched many lives in a positive way even when she was handing down a prison sentence, and she doesn’t need to leave the bench or hand out bibles to do it.

I agree with the atheist group.

[ecstatic]

34. Without knowing the details of what was disclosed in court

why bother to be outraged? Guyger could have mentioned religion or something about feeling lost and needing direction or even wanting to learn the bible. That could also be what prompted the young man to hug her after the sentencing.

If any of the DIRECTLY involved parties want to file a complaint, let them do so. Otherwise, the atheist group should focus their time and energy on something more important.

[JonLP24]

36. Seperation of church and state is very important to Freedom From Religion

The name of the athiest group. They file lawsuits all the time so this is nothing new for them.

[pintobean]

40. Their name is stupid.

There is no such freedom.

[JonLP24]

43. Not the first time I heard that

Almost always someone says that when the group is mentioned.

Whether their name is accurate or not I support their separation of church in state stance.

[pintobean]

49. They seem to go overboard, to me.

I'm an atheist, but I respect the religious freedom that is protected by the first amendment.

[JonLP24]

52. So do I

A judge coming out instructing a defendant to start here John 3:16 is different to me though. When I was in the Army someone said I was AWOL=absent without the Lord and tried to convert me. I ended up going through the religious conversion because I didn't want to offend him. I didn't like it then.

[jberryhill]

59. That's an odd understanding of the First Amendment

When you are a government official acting in your capacity as a government official then, no, you do not have the right to exercise your religion in that capacity. When you are acting in your official capacity, you are agent of the state and cannot promote religion.

I am surprised at how many people here have decided that they agree with the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same sexual couples because it interfered with her exercise of religion while doing her government job.

[pintobean]

69. From what I understand

The hearing was over when the exchange took place. The judge was not acting in her official capacity. It was a private conversation.

The Kentucky woman was clearly in the wrong.

[GReedDiamond]

62. So are you saying the 1st Amendment does not apply to those...

...who choose not to belong to some sort of religion?

That it only applies to those who believe in whatever kind of supernatural sky being(s) they believe in?

Are you saying that atheists have no 1st Amendment right to be "free from religion"?

If so, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

And the name of their organization is perfect, not stupid.

[jberryhill]

72. Atheists are so intolerant - always killing non-atheists

You know, the problem with atheists is their long history of burning people at the stake for disagreeing, or using atheism as a reason to go to war, and stuff like that.

[GReedDiamond]

73. Yeah, but you forgot about the disemboweling...

eddited fur speeling...

[Captain Stern]

37. I don't have a problem with the Judge giving the convicted woman a Bible.

I just have a problem with when she gave it to her.

She shouldn't have given the Bible to the convict in Court. In court, the Judge should be a Judge, and only a Judge.

There would have been many, many, opportunities to privately give the convict a Bible later.

[Ms. Toad]

57. Let me put it this way.

I had two students last year - father and daughter. The daughter has hopes of being a judge someday and making her father call her judge. His appropriate response was - never gonna happen. It would create the appearance of impropriety for me to appear in your court, and out of court you're not the judge.

So - no, it was not appropriate for the Judge to give her a bible. It might have been appropriate for Tammy Kemp to give her a bible, in the context of whatever personal relationship they might have (although even that gets complex, since - depending on appeals - she might appear before the Judge again).

[Captain Stern]

79. That's pretty much what I said...just with more words. I agree. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

80. You're making the distinction based on timing

I'm making the distinction based on who it is who is acting- the judge (never appropriate - governed by the constitution & judicial code of ethics), or Tammy Kemp (might be appropriate, depending on their relationship).

It's a subtle distinction, important for attorneys and judges, but probably not worth belaboring for purposes of this conversation.

[Captain Stern]

82. Yet again, I agree n/t

[yortsed snacilbuper]

46. You would think a judge would know better?

[Skittles]

64. agreed

it is NOT appropriate

[Crunchy Frog]

47. I think it was very unprofessional and inappropriate.

It seems like a violation of the separation of church and state, and suggests a lack of impartiality on her part.

[Horse with no Name]

51. Tammy Kemp is a good Dallas Democrat

Who happens to be of faith.
For the record, she also kept a mans ashes on her desk during a trial where he was killed by his wife.
Botham Jean was a faithful man as is his family.
The trial was over. Judgment was rendered.
I think that Guyger didn’t get enough time but it was over at this point.
This defendant was extended Christian grace by the family and the Judge. I hope this grace changes her life.

[Ms. Toad]

58. Neither her party, nor anything else, makes it any less a violation of the first amendment

Judge Kemp is an employee of the state. She may not act in a way that serves to advance religion.

The acts of Botham Jean's family are an entirely other matter.

[Horse with no Name]

61. Well by all means, let's work to remove her from the bench

There are plenty of Repugs that will be lined up to take this.
As it didn’t influence the trial, I am not going to support throwing out a good jurist because as I actually live here, I know the political climate.
This is Dallas, Texas and while it’s not completely progressive yet, we are working on it.

[Ms. Toad]

68. Did I suggest working to remove her from the bench?

What I said is that her party affiliation is irrelevant as to whether she violated the constitutional rights. The complaint filed in ths case is proper. Whether it results in her removal from the bench is an matter for the local community and the Texas bar association.

Violating the constitution is a national matter. It is not subject to the local political climate, nor does it make a bit of difference whether it influenced the outcome of the trial. The first amendment isn't about a fair trial - it is about the right to be free from government (i.e. the judge) establishment of religion (i.e. giving a member of the public a Christian Bible and a religious lesson - go start wtih John 3:16, in the scope of her state employment).

Turning a blind eye because the offending party is on our side is what the GOP is doing as to Trump.

[jberryhill]

60. It's good that we have courts to extend Christian grace

Same sex couples in Kentucky were also extended Christian grace by this creature exercising her religion while performing a government job:



It’s stunts like this that make people like Kim Davis believe they can bring their gods to work.

[Sneederbunk]

55. The judge and Botham's brother certainly interrupted activist agendas.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

56. I don't support this judge's actions at all.

[MicaelS]

63. And then Atheists wonder why they are hated.

The First Amendment say nothing about Freedom FROM Religion. It guarantees Freedom of Worship.

People still swear on the Bible when being inducted into public office. Obama did, as has every other President.

In court during a trial.

Congress opens sessions with a prayer.

SCOTUS opens with "God bless this honorable court".

So the idea that there should be an absolute separation of religion and state is not supported by the actions of ALL three branches of government.

[jberryhill]

70. I don't wonder why Christians hate other people so passionately

It used to strike me as odd why Christians spend so much effort hating other people.

My father kept various memorabilia of the war in his footlocker, and I was always fascinated by the German army belt buckle with the inscription “Gott Mitt Uns”. One day I asked my mother - a refugee from the Russian zone of post-war Austria incidentally - what it meant.

I was so weirded out that it said “God with us” on it, and asked how the Germans could have thought God was on their side.

And my mom told me the simple truth of the most outwardly religious - “Evil people always think God is on their side.”

But, yes, of course the religious hate atheists.

[DFW]

81. Might I ask where you got your "every other president?"

John Quincy Adams, Franklin Pierce and Theodore Roosevelt (first term, after McKinley's assassination in 1901) were presidents, too, weren't they?

As for the Supreme Court and Congress, those are institutions that have not always acted honorably, so I wouldn't take the God part of their invocations very seriously, either.

Several members of Congress just this January swore their oath of office on a Koran, so make that SOME people swear on the bible, not all.

Separation of church and state has by no means been achieved. Nor has equality for every citizen under the law or voting rights for every citizen, either, even though the constitution either mandates it or implies it. That doesn't mean that they are goals to abandon in face of an opposing onslaught.

[MicaelS]

84. I should have said most, so point taken.

I have no problem with anyone swearing in on any book of religious faith. I do not believe in an absolute wall between state and expressions of faith.

What many White Atheists seem to forget is that expressions of faith are a large part of AA, Hispanic / Latino, Jewish and Islamic communities. White Atheists risk alienating Allies in these communities.

The Jean family expressed their faith in court. That should be respected.

While I admire and respect you greatly, you and I will just have to disagree on this issue.

[Alea]

66. Strangest ending of a Court Session I've ever seen.

[Kaleva]

71. Everyone here has the right to reject a Bible from this judge if she were to offer one.

We also have the right to accept it.

[Kali]

75. this is a tough one for me

in general I would say totally inappropriate, but sometimes judges do personal things that can actually make a difference in people's lives. I don't know whether that is considered unethical or not. (and I can see both sides of that) it seems to happen a lot, whether a comment or some advice that has nothing really to do with the specifics of a case. I don't know about giving personal items, does that happen?

not knowing whatever other personal info was generated during the trial that may have led to this action, I can't just blindly condemn it. I must admit it comes across as inappropriate without more info. representatives of the State shouldn't be promoting any religion.

[UniteFightBack]

76. Nobody in any profession should do this. nt

[fescuerescue]

83. What is the legal remedy here?

Have the judge take it back from her?

[Autumn]

85. I'm not an Atheist and I think she crossed the line.

No judge should give any gift to a convicted murderer while in session.