This decision makes it clear that at least one recent appointee to the federal bench is prepared to openly discard the weight of the opinion of James Madison, the primary author of our nation's Constitution.   Madison wrote:

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.  We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.  The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.  They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences in denying the principle.  We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.  Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?  that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

 Had James W. Green lived in New England during the revolutionary war, he would have undoubtedly been in much good company.  Unfortunately for him, James W. Green is living an increasingly isolated life in the wrong place at the wrong time.   He lives in Eastern Oklahoma in the twenty-first century.  In a small town where the Judge says, "Everyone knows each other."  Now, the barber who has cut his hair for the last decade refuses to trim his locks.

Complaining about an encroachment on the First Amendment is not mere "kerfuffle" to James W. Green.  Like many others in different places and in different times, he believes defending the Constitution of the United States is his patriotic duty.  He believes that the Constitution protects the rights of religious minorities and secures religious liberty for all persons equally.  He believes that in the United States the government is required to be neutral in regard to religion -- neither promoting it nor discouraging it.

Mr. Green's neighbors, however, have a different idea of the Constitution and of patriotism.  They assert that America is a "Christian nation."  They think a monument with the Ten Commandments on one side and the Mayflower Compact on the other symbolizes a "Christian heritage" that forms a necessary legal foundation for the government of the United States.  They hold rallies that question the patriotism of those who assert that the Constitution requires that church and state be separate.  They loudly proclaim that "the ACLU should go to North Korea" and all who disagree with them are "free to move elsewhere."

To his credit, Mike Bush -- the Baptist lay minister who secured approval, solicited private funding and erected the monument -- did not deny his political and religious intentions for doing so.  Neither did one of the County Commissioners who approved the placement of the monument on the courthouse lawn, but he died before the case came to trial.  Thereafter, Judge White found it convenient to ignore that Commissioner's sworn deposition since the Judge was unable to view that Commissioner's courtroom "demeanor."  

Another County Commissioner, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, passionately told a crowd of citizens that "the bulldozer will have to run over me" if the court ordered the monument removed.  Then he denied, under oath, that he made this statement publicly.  

I testified that I heard this Commissioner give his "bulldozer" quip to the entire crowd at a rally from a microphone.  My testimony was discounted as having an "agenda" to further the goals of Mainstream Baptists and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.  The same Commissioner also testified that he "does not believe in the separation of church and state."  The Judge concluded that his only "agenda" was "to please the electorate."  

The entire board of County Commissioners approved a policy governing the placement of monuments, plaques and markers on government property that denies equal rights to persons of minority faiths.   In Haskell County Oklahoma monuments, plaques and markers can only be placed on government property by persons and groups with a fifty year history within the county.   Judge White asserted that this "policy, and its adoption, play no part in the outcome of this case." Then the Judge concluded that the Commissioner's were justified in their concern that had they denied a request to erect the monument, Mike Bush might have successfully sued them for denying his free speech rights.

By now it might be clear to some that Judge White's opinion would be poorly suited as a model for sound reasoning and logical consistency.  During my thirty-four years as a Baptist minister, I have often observed preachers who, sensing that logic is against them, begin diverting attention from their weak reasoning by amplifying their rhetorical flourish and by quoting poetry.   Judge White may well have missed his calling in life.  Not only does he quote Dante in his opinion, but he titles the headings of his decision "Cantica's" and the subheadings "Canto's."  Biblical allusions and metaphors can be found on nearly every quarto of this forty-three page Canticle to American Theocracy.

At least one legal scholar was thoroughly impressed with White's ode to theocracy.  Howard M. Friedman, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Toledo, wrote on his blog:

What is unusual is the literate and amusing opinion written by federal district Judge Ronald A. White. The opinion, whose subheadings are inspired by Dante's Inferno, accomplishes the nearly impossible task of keeping the reader enthralled for 43 pages.

 Friedman might be excused for finding White's decision so entertaining.  Reading some legal decisions could easily be prescribed as a cure for acute insomnia.  There is a reason, however, why many legal opinions make such dull reading.  Justice is far better served by methodical adherence to the rules of logical thought and by impartial application of sound reasoning to legal precedent than it is by the rapturous lyricism and judicial blandishments of misplaced poets.