• Home
  • News
  • Preacher Appeals Sentence for Article Predicting God Would Smite Judge

First Amendment

Preacher Appeals Sentence for Article Predicting God Would Smite Judge

Posted Nov 13, 2008 7:08 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

An activist preacher in Michigan is appealing his sentence of up to 10 years in prison for writing an article predicting that God would smite the judge who oversaw his trial and conviction for paying patrons of a soup kitchen to vote.

The Rev. Edward Pinkney was sentenced in June to three to 10 years in jail for violating his probation in the voting case by making a threat against the judge, the Associated Press reports. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Pinkney and has filed a motion seeking his release on bond.

"To our knowledge, this case marks the first time in modern history that a preacher has been imprisoned for predicting what God might do,'' Michigan ACLU legal director Michael Steinberg said in a press release.

An ACLU brief in support of the motion (PDF) claims the sentence violates Pinkney’s First Amendment rights.

Pinkney’s article alleged that the Berrien County judge who oversaw his trial was racist, dumb and corrupt. “The Lord shall smite thee with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning,” he wrote.

Comments

1.

Juan R. Pollo
Nov 13, 2008 11:03 AM CST

I don’t know about the judge being racist and corrupt, but there’s certainly evidence to support the dumb charge.

Flag this comment

2.

John Buso
Nov 14, 2008 6:32 AM CST

What view would this preacher have expressed about the activities of the ACLU if asked a few years ago?  He is referred to as an activist, but doubt he would have been a big supporter back then.

Flag this comment

3.

Hadley v Baxendale
Nov 14, 2008 7:26 AM CST

What threat?  Pinkney said that God, not Pinkney, would smite the judge.  I did not realize anyone said “smite” anymore.

Flag this comment

4.

Robert Bill
Nov 14, 2008 8:09 AM CST

As the ACLU points out:  the preacher’s prediction was not mandatory, it was merely a request that God consider sending the good judge a nasty virus.  That request ‘smite’ not be granted.  No harm, no foul.  Let the preacher go.

Flag this comment

5.

Jim
Nov 14, 2008 8:31 AM CST

Yes, those versed in the word might make use of smite, particularly where the feel they have been unjustly wronged by the hand of justice.  See Acts 23.  Ironically, there also there “perceived threat” was only a commitment to higher justice.  The judge should be ashamed of such a blatant attempt at retribution.

Flag this comment

6.

Dan
Nov 14, 2008 8:31 AM CST

Sure, sure, everyone hates the ACLU… until they’re defending *your* rights.

Flag this comment

7.

Laura
Nov 14, 2008 9:25 AM CST

I like how this implies that the preacher might actually be able to control the acts of God!  I mean, that’d be the most powerful reverend in the world.

Flag this comment

8.

Justin
Nov 14, 2008 9:33 AM CST

Who does this preacher think he is, Father Divine?

Flag this comment

9.

Anthony
Nov 14, 2008 10:01 AM CST

I’d make a detailed comment here but I’m afraid a Michigan prosecutor may come after me for “attempted smiting”.

Flag this comment

10.

Chris
Nov 14, 2008 10:36 AM CST

Hmmm, it does seem a bit of an unusual case compared to “typical” ACLU causes, but there may be a simple answer.  What candidate was this preacher supporting through his “pay out the vote” campaign?  (Perhaps I should watch my language, lest I be smitten…)

Flag this comment

11.

sb
Nov 14, 2008 10:48 AM CST

It’s not often that I agree with the ACLU, but after reading the articles, including Rev. Pinkney’s article, I have to say it’s quite a stretch to say that his statements constitute a threat.

I wonder what the judge would say to Monty Python: “If you do not appease us, we will say ‘nee’ to you again!”  “Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!”

Now those are threats!

Flag this comment

12.

sb
Nov 14, 2008 10:53 AM CST

I know, I know, it’s close enough, but for the Monty Python geeks out there, the original quote was “We shall say ‘ni’ again to you if you do not appease us.”

Flag this comment

13.

gawd
Nov 14, 2008 2:13 PM CST

I would have considered it but I thought the “inflammation” request was a bit much.

Flag this comment

14.

Dickey
Nov 14, 2008 2:27 PM CST

Some preachers consider it their duty to “carry out” the will of God.  So I can see where this would be considered a vailed threat.

Flag this comment

15.

Jim
Nov 14, 2008 2:41 PM CST

I love the irony of someone who is on probation, calling the judge, who has the discretion to send that someone to prison if he violates the terms of his probation, dumb.

Flag this comment

16.

MaryM
Nov 15, 2008 8:05 AM CST

What ever happened to the First Amendment.  If this is a threat, then most ‘fired up’ preachers would be guilty.

Flag this comment

17.

Walt
Nov 15, 2008 6:10 PM CST

The First Amendment speaks with muted tones in a court setting.  Ever seriously consider telling a judge what you thought of her ruling against you?  Any absolute taken to extremes doesn’t work.  Still, this judge’s skin seems a bit thin here.

Flag this comment

18.

John T. Hammond
Nov 16, 2008 9:29 PM CST

Pinkney had had prior felony convictions in CA, MO and MI.  (Just off parole in MI.)  Jury found him guilty of 4 felonies and a misdemeanor.  Trial judge gave probation w/one year jail & delayed jail to settle affairs.  (First judge was criticized for lenient sentence.) Jail finally was   imposed. Pinkney’s article published.  Judge recused himself from P/V.  A second judge handled the P/V and sentenced.  MORAL : When you get an easy sentence, shut up.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.