In Alabama, a judge presiding over a lawsuit over a church's financial records decided it would be a good idea if they all prayed together. Apparently, this lawsuit won't just be decided on its merits and the law, but on God's will — hardly the sort of impression which a judge should be giving. No one objected at the time, but that's not a surprise in cases where one is dealing with a person with a great deal of power over a legal case. Maybe that's why a complaint was only registered afterwards, and with an outside organization that won't reveal the person's identity.

Witnesses said the presiding judge, Covington County Circuit Judge M. Ashley McKathan, told some 100 people, including members of the Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church and other spectators and officials gathered for a conference regarding the church records case, to join hands in a circle as he prayed. At one point, witnesses said, the judge fell to his knees.

Source: Press-Register (via Ed Brayton)

This isn't the first time that Judge M. Ashley McKathan has come up in the news for this kind of inappropriate behavior. A couple of years ago, he thought it would be a good idea to stitch the Ten Commandments into his robe to make a statement about their being the foundation of the law. I don't think McKathan even realizes that others would object to such behavior, never mind that it is completely inappropriate — he actually expressed surprise that anyone would file a complaint about his group prayer. Naturally he didn't have any comment to make about it.

"From what the complainant described," [Allison Neal, an ACLU attorney] said, "this was grossly inappropriate judicial behavior." ...University of Alabama Associate Professor Paul Horwitz, a specialist in law and religion, said McKathan may have had good intentions, but his actions in calling the parties to prayer were "clearly improper."

For the separation of church and state to mean anything, it has to mean that government officials — elected or appointed — cannot have the authority over any purely religious matters. This would have to include calls to prayer. Image the outcry if a judge called parties to a legal case to Muslim prayers, or started chanting "Hare Krishna" at a press conference.

Even the most conservative Christian would immediately recognize such behavior as completely inappropriate — but when a judge engages in analogous behavior on the basis of Christian beliefs, people are suddenly surprised that there would be complaints. Why? Because they clearly and unambiguously want to use the power of the state to promote and privilege their Christian beliefs. They don't want a secular, democratic state where everyone is equal; they want a theocratic state in which Christians are privileged (an idea which McKathan seems to support).

Granted, Judge M. Ashley McKathan didn't specifically order anyone to pray with him, but a person in his position and with his legal power doesn't need to order anyone appearing before him in court in order for people to feel pressured:

McKathan may have thought all in the courtroom consented, but because he was the arbiter, many may have felt compelled to participate even if they did not want to, Horwitz said. "Even if they all consented," Horwitz said, "it is inappropriate for a judge to act in an overtly religious way in any case, but especially in one that raises religious issues. The parties need a neutral and impartial arbiter."

It's not plausible that McKathan would be unaware of the social and legal pressure which a judge exercises over people who appear before him in court. So if he really was surprised that anyone would complain, it's unlikely that this surprise would be due to not realizing the pressure he creates on others. It would be more likely that his surprise would be due to simply not realizing that not everyone is Christian and/or that not everyone wants civil, governmental authorities to lead them in Christian, religious rituals. Maybe he really doesn't understand that not even all Christians don't share his views about the relationship between church and state or between civil and religious authority.