ChristiansUnite Forums

Judge-led Bible study prompts complaint
'Issue of a free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly'

A Bible study group at the courthouse led by Associate Judge Matthew Thornhill has prompted a complaint from a lawyer and discussion by county officials.

In a letter Jan. 8 to presiding Judge Ted House, St. Charles Attorney Darrell Davis wrote: "I believe that by allowing this group to meet regularly and free of charge, the court is in fact forcing the taxpayers of the county of St. Charles to support these Christian gentlemen in their avocation and beliefs."

Davis sent copies of the letter to the remaining 11 judges, including Thornhill, who discussed the Bible group in a monthly judge's meeting this week. Davis could not be reached for comment.

The judges decided to seek the advice of County Executive Steve Ehlmann and County Counselor Joann Leykam, whom they invited to their next meeting on March 5.


Thornhill, who took the bench last month, has been at the center of another controversy at the courthouse. He resigned as an assistant prosecutor in December amid an allegation that he solicited baseball memorabilia in exchange for reducing a criminal charge in a drug case. Thornhill denied the allegation. He agreed to hear only civil cases after Prosecutor Jack Banas disqualified him from criminal cases because of the dispute.

Thornhill said the Bible group, usually about 10 people, meets at noon Wednesdays. The group has met since 2002.

"I just think it's very worthwhile," Thornhill said.

Davis complained that the group meets in a nonpublic jury room and is for male lawyers only. The meetings have since moved to another room with public access.

Thornhill said other courthouse employees have attended and that some lawyers have brought friends. Two women have asked Thornhill about attending, but when he explained that male issues are often discussed, they decided not to come, he said. Women wouldn't be turned away, he said.

House, the presiding judge, says he sees nothing wrong with the group meeting in the courthouse and has even attended on occasion.

"To me it's an issue of a free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly," he said. "There's no other context in which we could tell a group of lawyers they can't meet."

Considering they are only using a facility for their meeting.  It is open and it is not a public forum (ie the courtroom during session) and it is only people of like faith who attend and it is not "forced" upon anyone then I do not see where it could possibly be any issue...but then that is me and the courts are going to see to get rid of God in any aspect from any portion of public arena.

But by golly if a group of men cannot meet in the courthouse during lunch or something to have an off the clock Bible study then no one should be allowed to discuss anything religious in a public library conference room either.  Or on a soap box on the street corner for that matter...it is tax payers money that pays for the sidewalk...can't have anyone preaching on public property like that.

And once again I see the last part of the assembly clause "mysteriously" left out.  Shame

Purposefully left out.