http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/18/honor-thy-contracts/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:41:24 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/18/honor-thy-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-70940 InnerChange Freedom Initiative Getting The Boot « Shane Vander Hart Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:16:58 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/18/honor-thy-contracts/#comment-70940 [...] The Intellectual Conservative weighed in on that decision: Importantly, the Eighth Circuit panel slapped down Judge Pratt and defended religious liberty and free association. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Duane Benton’s opinion for the panel (which included Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) held that Judge Pratt abused his discretion by accepting the testimony of a law professor/Ph.D./author about the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. Quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Helms (2002), Judge Benton wrote that “[a]n inquiry into an organization’s religious views to determine if it is pervasively sectarian ‘is not only unnecessary but also offensive.  It is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.’” [...] [...] The Intellectual Conservative weighed in on that decision: Importantly, the Eighth Circuit panel slapped down Judge Pratt and defended religious liberty and free association. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Duane Benton’s opinion for the panel (which included Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) held that Judge Pratt abused his discretion by accepting the testimony of a law professor/Ph.D./author about the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. Quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Helms (2002), Judge Benton wrote that “[a]n inquiry into an organization’s religious views to determine if it is pervasively sectarian ‘is not only unnecessary but also offensive.  It is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.’” [...]

]]>