My take is that it’s hard to argue against the Summum, in this case. The arguments about “longstanding ties” and such are just so much smoke. I can see how allowing the ten commandments and not the “Seven Aphorisms”, is anything other than a state endorsement of one religion over another. And is why putting the 10 Commandments there in the first place is a bad idea.
Additionally I love some of the Amorphims:
Question is, is this one of the Elk/DeMille Ten Commandments monuments that were put up to advertise the movie?
Nope, according to the article it was put up in '71 but a fraternal organization.
I’m ready to change my mind on the issue, based on two things I heard on NPR this morning. I’m still looking for cites on the web, and I’m not ruling out the possibility that I mis-heard the story.
One, the city’s argument includes the statement - explicitly made - that governments have a right to establish expression of their own and expect to have that expression protected via the First Amendment. This is practically the definition of governmental oppression. It’s such a vacuous argument that I’m surprised it got as far as the Supreme Court. Their argument would actually hold water if it was based on historic and secular notions, but to claim that governments need a fair voice too is frightening.
Two, the city’s attorney is a disciple of Pat Robertson. It seems that Mormon-bashing for sport is fine and dandy until there’s money to be made representing them.
(Third, Sekulow godwinized himself early, by comparing the situation to erecting a statue of Hitler at a Holocaust memorial. Ironic analogies, anyone?)
Screw these guys. They’ve made their bed, they can sleep in it now.
Using this quote:
to address the basic repeated issue brought up in this thread that Summun’s (who are not a bunch of freaks, I know some of them and they are a very nice and reasonable people with some minority religious views) position would lead to very unpopular positions, I bring you http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/11/12/homepage_lead/71101f4e075e0b40872574ff0007fc50.txt
In summary, Casper, Wyoming has filed an amicus brief in this case because Fred Phelps is trying to use this case to force Casper to put up a monument that says “Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12,1998, in Defiance of God’s Warning ‘thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.’ Leviticus 18:22.”
Let’s just put the giant, granite, ten commandments monument on top of Fred Phelps.
To clarify my first post, I was not trying to label Summum as freaks. I was saying that if their argument was accepted, then groups that are legitimately freaks-- such as Phelps and his crew–would have a weapon by which to harass states and cities all over the country.
This is only true of states, cities, and other government entities that accept and display items given to them by private groups, religious or otherwise.
I’m not sure that it would apply to items purchased by governments and subsequently displayed. It would be hard to make a case that the government had to purchase every monument or memorial that was offered for sale.
It’s a sticky case, no doubt. Hopefully we’ll have some more info on what the SCOTUS asked and talked about soon.
The monument in question has nothing to do with the founding fathers of the city of Pleasant Grove; as the article linked to in the OP notes, the monument was placed by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971.
Straight from the Eagles’ mouths, it sounds like the FOE’s campaign of putting up Ten Commandments monuments was a fairly standard evangelistic campaign of trying to get people to “get right with God”. If the Fraternal Order of Eagles thinks stumbling across the Ten Commandments in a public place is likely to change people’s lives, they are welcome to buy (or seek donations of) small plots of land in various communities across America to put up their monuments on. Or they could just donate their monuments to churches, most of which have perfectly serviceable front lawns.
If they insist on trying to put their monuments in public parks, which belong to the whole community, they are opening the door for Summum and the Secular Humanists and the Wiccans and the Saucerians and the Scientologists and Fred Phelps to all “donate” their messages, affirmations, and philosophical statements for display in public parks as well.
“The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen… [one of the three tablets falls and shatters] …Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!”
I found this article. It seems there was quite a lively bit of Q&A. I get the feeling that the SCOTUS will deny Summum, but I’m very curious how they will twist and turn and dodge and weave to try and justify the decision.
The article notes that a decision is expected by next summer.
What legal test do you propose to differentiate between “bands of freaks” and legitimate religious organizations?
Curiously, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty seems to understand the issues quite well.
They also were kind enough to post a summary of this mornings arguments online. There is a link to a .pdf of the actual transcript as well.
So reading through the Slate article leads me to the natural question: why is this being argued as a speech case, rather than a religion case? The hypotheticals Roberts poses
make sense in the context of free speech, but if the discriminating factor is religion, it’s hard to see how it’s anything other than a government endorsement of one particular religion.
I think they didn’t pursue the Establishment Clause angle because of the court’s decision in Van Orden v. Perry.
The SCOTUS there decided that a 10 Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause because it had both a religious and a secular message (the secular message being that this was one basis for our laws and justice system, therefore it is historical in nature).
