when “the reasonable observer would not understand the Friendship Bell display, in context, to convey the message that the government of Oak Ridge endorses Buddhism,” the impermissible effect of endorsing religion not present
How later courts described this case
- when “the reasonable observer would not understand the Friendship Bell display, in context, to convey the message that the government of Oak Ridge endorses Buddhism,” the impermissible effect of endorsing religion not present
- “When evaluating the “effects” prong of the Lemon test, this court applies the endorsement test, which was embraced by the Supreme Court in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately to express my view that plaintiff has failed to establish that the Oak Ridge bell is, in fact, a Buddhist religious symbol. The conflicting evidence in the record also supports a conclusion that the bell is a Japanese cultural object, or that any resemblance to a Buddhist bell is not substantial enough to give the Oak Ridge bell itself religious significance. I therefore doubt whether a Lemon analysis is even necessary in this situation. In any case, as the majority opinion notes, the Oak Ridge bell passes the Lemon test, and therefore does not violate the Establishment Clause even . if it were shown to be a religious symbol.