Snowbowl decision

[Ted Olsen]

 The Snowbowl decision (Navajo Nation v. Forest Service, denied cert. this
week by scotus) appears significant for religion clause discussions and
seems like it could be good fodder for a discussion in my magazine
(Christianity Today).  But the significance to Christianity is not
immediately apparent to me.

Any ideas?

The one I've thought about is looking again at the 9th Circuit opinion
(which, admittedly, is now a year old) and the questions it raises about
whether RFRA protects "subjective, emotional religious experience." The
court said diminishing "subjective, emotional religious experience" (i.e.
"damaged spiritual feelings") doesn't constitute a substantial burden. The
dissent said subjective emotional religious experience is at the very core
of religious belief and practice and therefore deserves the highest
protections. That discussion could be interesting not just for the religion
law questions but because it connects to so many other ongoing debate and
questions (protecting "damaged spiritual feelings" in various domestic laws
and UN resolutions, the relationship between "heart" religious expressions
and "head" ones, e.g. Pentecostals feeling like the red-headed stepchild of
the evangelical movement or of American Christianity in general, etc.)

But I'm no expert. Am I missing a more obvious implication of the Snowbowl
case on Christian faith and practice?

Ted Olsen
Managing Editor, News & Online Journalism
Christianity Today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090612/ad6455ba/attachment.htm>