Court Opinion

ID: 9811144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:10:49.901669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:06.625913
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The First Amendment freedom of religion clauses serve “to assure the fullest possible scope of religious liberty and tolerance for all[,] ... to avoid that divisiveness based upon religion that promotes social conflict!, and] ... to maintain that separation of church and state that has long been critical to the peaceful dominion that religion exercises in this country.” Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.2011) (citing Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 678, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005)).
First, despite arguments to the contrary, a twelve-foot tall statue of Jesus situated on government-leased land cannot realistically be looked upon as “predominantly secular in nature.” Id. at 1107.
Second, to determine the effect of the statue we ask whether “it would be objectively reasonable for the government action to be construed as sending primarily a message of either endorsement or disapproval of religion.” Id. at T109 (quoting Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1398 (9th Cir.1994)). I submit that a “reasonable observer would perceive” the statue situated on government land “as projecting a message of religious endorsement.” Id. at 1118.
I respectfully dissent.