Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Display in Public Park

[kpete]

Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Display in Public Park
Published 1, February 25, 2009 Constitutional Law , Politics , Religion , Society , Supreme Court

180px-rembrandt_harmensz_van_rijn_079The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a small religious group cannot force a city in Utah to place a granite marker in a local park. The park in Pleasant Grove Utah already contains a Ten Commandments display. Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion.


Alito rejected the argument that this was a free speech matter. He stressed the placement of a permanent marker is strikingly different from prohibiting speech in a park.

Such a monument would constitute “government speech,” conveying a message that it wishes to get out about “esthetics, history, and local culture.” Four Justices filed concurring opinions.

A religious sect, the Summum, argued that its free speech rights were violated when the city of Pleasant Grove City, Utah., when the city accepted a Ten Commandments monument in its pubic park but refused to accept a monument displaying tenets of the Summum faith. The “Seven Aphorisms” of that faith represent what believers view as the contents of the original tablets handed down by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. For an earlier entry, click here.

For a copy of the opinion, click here.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-512.pdf
more at:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/02/25/supreme-court-rules-against-religious-display-in-public-park/#more-8511

[Somawas]

1. I have to read this opinion. Because this makes no sense at all.

But then I would have told them to send the Ten Commandments packing. Then I'd have no trouble with this.

[Towlie]

2. Misleading headline, don't you think? I was expecting good news.

The Ten Commandments display still stands.

[Towlie]

4. On second thought, maybe it was good news after all. Read this:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/02/63344651/1

Justice Samuel Alito said placement of a permanent marker on public grounds represents a type of government speech. That gives a city the latitude to say essentially what it wants, rather than open the grounds to all comers.

Bingo! That's exactly what the Humanists say they wanted to see. Their press release crows that the group now has ...

... just what it needs to pursue the removal of Ten Commandments monuments on public property all over America ... We humanists are ready to argue that Ten Commandments monuments in U.S. public parks are unconstitutional government endorsements of religion ...

Like the proposed Summum monument, Ten Commandments monuments show government preference for certain religious views over others and thus exclude a significant body of citizens.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/02/63344651/1">more

[JuniperLea]

3. That does it!

I'm going full on Rastafarian and erecting a massive spliff in my local park!