Religion & Law

That's the speculation in this Washington Post article. The article praises Judge Kozinski's opinion in the Alvarez case as an "entertaining treatise." I thought, rather, that Kozinski's opinion was one of the more depressing judicial opinions I've read in some time. Kozinski states--"Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying." I don't think Judge Kozinski knows much about saints. Saints are persons who have sinned, just as the rest of us do. But they were able to live lives of great holiness, maybe because they recognized when they failed.   

In contrast, Kozinski's opinion seems to celebrate our moral failings. Maybe that's just because he's trying for the quotable rhetorical flourish. But the tenor of the opinion seems to reflect the judge's deeply held beliefs. (Strangely, the opinion contains an offhand critique of the First Amendment law on pornography.) He maintains that "white lies, exaggerations, and deceptions ..are an integral part of human existence." This doesn't seem just a factual recognition of our fallen natures. This seems to reflect his view that untruthful speech is valuable for its own sake, because of its essential role in "human self-expression" and the pursuit of "personal autonomy."

Richard M.