Guest Opinion

Mike Suetkamp
Indiana State Director for American Atheists

It was suspected before this lawsuit was filed that Judge Sharp had a particular bias in regard to religious lawsuits. He once ruled it was perfectly acceptable for the Gideons to hand out bibles on school property. This highly illegal practice was sternly thwarted in a subsequent appeal. But this latest ruling further underscores his inability to read the constitution. It also makes clear that there is something quite wrong with his interpretations in cases such as this. A close examination of his “findings” will make perfectly clear just what type of personal bias he is dishing out from his bench.

In reading the DESPICABLE decision handed down by Judge Sharp I stumbled across a major flubburb on his part. Even though this case will start again from scratch, there is every reason to think this decision will be referenced somewhere at sometime in the future...even when it is overruled :o)

On page 15 Line 3-4 he starts out by saying:

“it is approximately forty-six feet from the main entrance to the building and the religious message is not visible to a person entering the building.”

BUT later on page 15 he starts the idea THAT:

“It is not exactly a religious symbol, as in challenges to displays of nativity scenes and Latin crosses, because it has a message. It is not purely a religious message, though...”

Concluding this attempted justification on page 23-24 he says:

“It is no more religious than the national motto, ‘In God we Trust,’ and no more pervasive than the presence of the motto on national coins and currency.”

But AGAIN on page 46 he says:

“Nor do they allege that anyone is forced to stand in front of the monument and read its religious message.”

And FINALLY to put the ICING on the cake he concludes his argument with the following:

Hopefully, this discussion will lead to a careful reexamination of precisely where we are going with our jurisprudence about religious messages and symbols on public property in the United States.

The main point being everywhere in the “decision” where it wasn’t relevant (pertinent to his self-interests) he directly referred to the commandments as being RELIGIOUS. But, when he got to the one spot where saying they were religious would have hurt the contradictory justification he is attempting to make, he says they aren’t.

There are numerous other contradictions and errors abound in this decision. I just thought this was a more subtle one that some may overlooked so I wanted to point it out. The fact is most of all in reading this alleged judicial “finding”. Is that matter of law, freedom and justice played no part in its rendering. But rather, selfish personal interests were served by someone that mistook their BENCH for a PULPIT.

[further detail on this story is available in Flash Line. The text of the decision is available here. Ed.]