# Religious Stereotypes



## Scott

Below is an excerpt from a 1936 article by Clarence Darrow on picking a jury. He stereotypes various denominations and explains whether they would be good for a criminal defense lawyer. Anyway, it is rather amusing. Highlighted the "presbyterian," as it is most relevant here.



> If he is a Catholic, then he loves music and art; he must be emotional, and will want to help you; give him a chance.
> 
> *If a Presbyterian enters the jury box and carefully rolls up his umbrella, and calmly and critically sits down, let him go. He is cold as the grave; he knows right from wrong, although he seldom finds anything right. He believes in John Calvin and eternal punishment. Get rid of him with the fewest possible words before he contaminates the others; unless you and your clients are Presbyterians you probably are a bad lot, and even though you may be a Presbyterian, your client most likely is guilty.*
> 
> If possible, the Baptists are more hopeless than the Presbyterians. They, too, are apt to think that the real home of all outsiders is Sheol, and you do not want them on the jury, and the sooner they leave the better. The Methodists are worth considering; they are nearer the soil. Their religious emotions can be transmuted into love and charity. They are not half bad; even though they will not take a drink, they really do not need it so much as some of their competitors for the seat next to the throne. If chance sets you down between a Methodist and a Baptist, you will move toward the Methodist to keep warm.
> 
> Beware of the Lutherans, especially the Scandinavians; they are almost always sure to convict. Either a Lutheran or Scandinavian is unsafe, but if both in one, plead your client guilty and go down the docket. He learns about sinning and punishing from the preacher, and dares not doubt. A person who disobeys must be sent to hell; he has God's word for that.
> 
> As to Unitarians, Universalists, Congregationalists, Jews and other agnostics, don't ask them too many questions; keep them anyhow, especially Jews and agnostics. It is best to inspect a Unitarian, or a Universalist, or a Congregationalist with some care, for they may be prohibitionists; but never the Jews and the real agnostics! And do not, please, accept a prohibitionist; he is too solemn and holy and dyspeptic. He knows your client would not have been indicted unless he were a drinking man, and anyone who drinks is guilty of something, probably much worse than he is charged with, although it is not set out in the indictment. Neither would he have employed you as his lawyer had he not been guilty.
> 
> I have never experimented with Christian Scientists; they are much too serious for me. Somehow, solemn people seem to think that pleasure is wicked. Only the gloomy and dyspeptic can be trusted to convict. Shakespeare knew: "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much; such men are dangerous."



[Edited on 11-8-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Worth a read and a laugh.


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Worth a read and a laugh.



You are correct. However, so much of our modern secular world idolizes Darrow that such a quote creates within me a mixture of pity and fear.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> *If a Presbyterian enters the jury box and carefully rolls up his umbrella, and calmly and critically sits down, let him go. He is cold as the grave; he knows right from wrong, although he seldom finds anything right. He believes in John Calvin and eternal punishment. Get rid of him with the fewest possible words before he contaminates the others; unless you and your clients are Presbyterians you probably are a bad lot, and even though you may be a Presbyterian, your client most likely is guilty.*


:bigsmile:


----------



## Craig

If I was defending godless, guilty men....I think I say the same things


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> If I was defending godless, guilty men....I think I say the same things


but then again, a defendent should have a jury of his peers 

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Scott

"If I was defending godless, guilty men....I think I say the same things"

Yes, I think the response to this is that Darrow was a criminal defense attorney looking for jurors most favorable to his clients (mainly criminals). If you are a criminal, you don't want a presbyterian on the jury. Of course, a nice unitarian would be ok. 

Seriously, prosectuors are so overworked and have so many cases that they typically only bring the cases with the best evidence. In nearly all of the cases they bring the defendant is guilty. Prosecutors have very high conviction rates, over 80 percent. Anyway, Darrow was for the most part defending criminals.


----------

