|
I think the best explanation for the
district judge’s decision to rely on the 9th Circuit opinion is
his own (remarkably candid) explanation. It appears in fn22, at the very
end of the opinion. For convenience, I’ve cut and pasted it below: 22 This court would be less than
candid if it did not acknowledge that it is relieved
that, by virtue of the disposition above, it need not attempt to apply
the Supreme Court’s recently articulated distinction between
those governmental activities which endorse religion, and are thus
prohibited, and those which acknowledge the Nation’s
asserted religious heritage, and thus are permitted. As last terms cases, S.Ct. 2722, 2005 WL 1498988 (2005)
and Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2005 WL 1500276 (2005)
demonstrate, the distinction is utterly standardless, and ultimate
resolution depends of the shifting, subjective sensibilities
of any five members of the High Court, leaving those of us who work
in the vineyard without guidance. Moreover, because the
doctrine is inherently a boundaryless slippery slope, any conclusion might
pass muster. It might be remembered that it was only a
little more than one hundred ago that the Supreme Court of this
nation declared without hesitation, after reviewing the history of
religion in this country, that “this is a Christian nation.” Church
of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 seem, given the lack of boundaries,
a case could be made for substituting “under Christ”
for “under God” in the pledge, thus marginalizing not only atheists and
agnostics, as the present form of the Pledge does, but also Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious
adherents who, not only are citizens of this nation, but in fact
reside in this judicial district. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps the real explanation for the
district judge's statement about being bound is that he wanted to do the right
thing, but needed to place the blame elsewhere. Even life tenure doesn't
solve all problems. |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
