Friday, March 12, 2010
I agree with Rick in the immediately preceding post. "Under God" is one thing; "Under Christ", another. The Ninth Circuit would surely not have permitted "Under Christ" to stand. Steve Shiffrin and I have both argued, in separate pieces, that the doctrinally problematic position is one according to which there may be no government affirmation of any religious premise whatsoever, even an ecumenical monotheistic premise. But the end of that position, if/when it comes, will not be the the end of "no endorsement". Rather, as Rick indicates, it will be the narrowing of the set of religious premises government may not endorse.