A Federal Court Disclaims Its Ability to Decide What is True and Not

[Draggingtree]

The American Interest:

 

A Federal Court Disclaims Its Ability to Decide What is True and Not

Peter Berger

A while ago on this blog I commented on a judgment by a Texas court which ruled that so-called “imprecatory prayer” (that is, prayer that asks God to inflict harm) is protected speech under the first amendment of the US constitution. The court asserted that there was no evidence that the prayer had actually harmed the individual cursed by it. My own reflection on this episode made two points: That the court rejected any supernatural causation as legally relevant, thus assuming only a naturalist understanding of reality as capable of producing “evidence”. And that such an assumption is a necessary “formula of peace” in a highly pluralistic society.

This judicial wisdom has now been replicated on the level of federal law. Howard Friedman, an emeritus professor of law at the University of Toledo, publishes a blog, “Religion Clause”, which reports on developments in church-state relations. On July 14, 2012, the blog reported on a decision by a federal district court in Louisiana. The decision affirmed the judgment by a state court that a municipal ordinance banning “palmistry, card reading, astrology, fortune-telling and phrenology” violates the first amendment to the read more

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/berger/2012/08/01/a-federal-court-disclaims-its-ability-to-decide-what-is-true-and-not/