The founding fathers of the United States may have tried their best to enshrine the division of church and state into the fabric of the nation, but such principles occasionally seem distant in contemporary law practice. An intriguing example emerges from the decidedly conservative Fifth Circuit, where justices have entered into a spirited offset over the meaning and relevance of a biblical verse – not for a case involving religion or the First Amendment, mind you. Instead, the particular interpretation of a verse from the Book of Matthew is appearing in a class action certification scenario.
Rather outlandishly, the usage and interpretation of the term “seek” from the Bible has become a point of judicial contention. As found by Judge James Ho, the biblical usage accentuates the core dictionary definition of the term, that is to ask for, demand, or request from a person. In turn, Ho has contended that the term ‘seek’ is often used in various contexts, including academic applications and legal pursuits. Along with the unfolding legal interpretation, Ho further seizes the chance in subsequent conversations to express opinions on the dismantling of affirmative action.
The matter, however, has caught the attention of the dissenting justices. Andy Oldham, for instance, noted Ho’s approach, challenging the usage and interpretation of ‘seek’ in the biblical context. Oldham argues that the bible suggests “seek, and ye shall find” precisely because God provides hope and faith. This, he continues, aligns more closely with the student who “seeks” admission to a college or university, brimming with hope even when the odds might be stacked against them – quite unlike a plaintiff seeking to recover from a defunct shell company. This analogy holds even when considering lottery players who seek to hit the jackpot, despite the slim chances of winning – a hope that plaintiffs are unlikely to harbour when seeking to recover from an insolvent entity.
It seems then that the Fifth Circuit has become a rather unlikely stage for theological discussions. Nevertheless, it serves as a pointed reminder of the varied ideological terrains of modern law.
For the original report with all the details, visit Above the Law.