{"title":"Nonestablishment Under God? The Nonsectarian Principle","authors":"S. Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.559148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using as a point of reference the Ninth Circuit's assertion in Newdow v. United States Congress that \"[a] profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes,\" to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' this essay attempts to disentangle three themes that the modern discourse of religious freedom often conflates, with baneful effect. We can call these the public secularism principle, the neutrality principle, and the nonsectarian principle. The essay argues that the first two of these principles have exercised a pernicious influence over First Amendment jurisprudence: but the third, if it could be extracted so that its own distinctive virtues could be appreciated, might provide valuable mooring for what is at present a deeply disoriented discourse.","PeriodicalId":83467,"journal":{"name":"Villanova law review","volume":"50 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Villanova law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.559148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Using as a point of reference the Ninth Circuit's assertion in Newdow v. United States Congress that "[a] profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes," to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' this essay attempts to disentangle three themes that the modern discourse of religious freedom often conflates, with baneful effect. We can call these the public secularism principle, the neutrality principle, and the nonsectarian principle. The essay argues that the first two of these principles have exercised a pernicious influence over First Amendment jurisprudence: but the third, if it could be extracted so that its own distinctive virtues could be appreciated, might provide valuable mooring for what is at present a deeply disoriented discourse.
作为参考点,第九巡回法院在纽道诉美国国会(Newdow v. United States Congress)一案中断言,“就政教分离条款而言,我们是一个‘在上帝之下’的国家,”与我们是一个‘在耶稣之下’的国家、‘在毗湿奴之下’的国家、‘在宙斯之下’的国家或‘无神之下’的国家是相同的”,本文试图理清现代宗教自由话语经常混淆的三个主题,这些主题具有有害的影响。我们可以称之为公共世俗主义原则、中立原则和非宗派原则。这篇文章认为,前两个原则对第一修正案的法理学产生了有害的影响:但第三个原则,如果能够被提取出来,以便其独特的优点能够得到欣赏,可能会为目前深深迷失方向的话语提供有价值的支点。