NationStates Jolt Archive

SCOTUS has just heard oral argument in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.* Turnabout being fair play, that case involves a religious group that believes in an addition to the Ten Commandments that is suing a city that has a monument to the Ten Commandments in a public park, but won't allow a similar monument for their religious tenets.

High court hears dispute over religious monument (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/11-12-2008/20081112003505_19.html)
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A religious group's fight to place a monument in a public park is at the center of a Supreme Court dispute over governments' power to limit speech.

Pleasant Grove City, Utah, is asking the justices, in arguments Wednesday, to allow it to reject the donation of a display from the religious group known as Summum.

The Salt Lake City-based group wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the city's Pioneer Park, which is home to a Ten Commandments monument that was donated in 1971 by another private group.

The Summum argued, and a federal appeals court agreed, that Pleasant Grove can't allow some private donations in its public park and reject others.

The federal government, states, cities and veterans organizations are among Pleasant Grove's backers in the Supreme Court.

They worry that a ruling for the Summum would allow almost anyone to erect a monument in a public park, including people with hateful points of view, or lead to the removal of war memorials and other long-standing displays.

The case appears to raise questions of government favoring one religion over another, which is banned by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. But the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the dispute on free speech grounds.

Some religious and civic groups want the justices to order the appeals court to review the case by looking at the religious freedoms issue.

The Summum say the Seven Aphorisms were given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Ten Commandments. Moses destroyed the tablet containing the aphorisms because he saw the people weren't ready for them, the Summum say.


Here is a better, more detailed explanation of the case (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1027/ten-commandments-displays). I quote some of this explanation below:

In July 2005, Summum filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Utah. Shortly after bringing the suit, Summum requested that the court grant a temporary injunction, a judicial order that would require the city to place the Seven Aphorisms monument in the park until the court reached a final decision on the matter. One element of the legal standard for granting a temporary injunction is that the individual or group requesting the injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing in the case. After holding a hearing on this issue in February 2006, the District Court rejected Summum's request for a temporary injunction on the ground that the group was unlikely to demonstrate a violation of its free speech rights.

In Summum v. City of Ogden (http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-4057.pdf), 297 F.3d 995, 1001 (10th Cir. 2002)*, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed reversed the District Court's decision and granted a temporary injunction. Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha's opinion, which was supported by the panel, held that the Ten Commandments monument in the park was private speech, not government speech, because a private group had donated the display and the government had not claimed responsibility for it.

Chief Judge Tacha then found that because a city park is a traditional public forum (a place the government creates for private individuals to express their ideas), Pleasant Grove could exclude the Seven Aphorisms monument only if the city's reason for doing so satisfied the most rigorous standard of judicial scrutiny, known as "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny would require the city to demonstrate that the exclusion was necessary to achieve a "compelling government interest," which includes only the most powerful government interests, such as ensuring public health or security. Because Tacha found it very unlikely that Pleasant Grove could satisfy this high standard, the 10th Circuit sent the case back to the District Court and ordered the city to permit Summum to place the monument in the park until the District Court issued a final ruling on the matter.

*Here is a pdf (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-665.pdf)of the SCOTUS oral argument transcript.

**Html version of the 10th Circuit opinion here (http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/04/06-4057.htm).

I need to read more of what I've linked before I form an opinion, but my initial reaction is mixed.

Any thoughts, questions, outraged comments?

My initial thought is that government should not be funding and maintaining permanent religious monuments of any kind on public property.

I have no problem with temporary installations in honor of holidays, such as a Christmas nativity, especially if the local government gives equal time for other religions' holiday displays, as representative of the local community.

And of course, private groups should be able to celebrate their religious observations in public, on public property -- as Catholic churches do for saints' feasts.

But I do not believe Pleasant Grove should have put up a Ten Commandments monument in a public park in the first place.

Initial comments:

I've always said that, if public lands were to be used for religious displays, the government would have to make such displays possible for all religious viewpoints. So my initial reaction is to say that the Summum have a case.

But I haven't really looked into this case beyond what you posted, so take that with a grain of salt.

at its core, i think cases like this demonstrate a deep seated hypocricy amongst some of the religious right and government officials, a belief of "well we can't let just ANYONE have free speech. If we do that, they might say things we disagree with"

at its core, i think cases like this demonstrate a deep seated hypocricy amongst some of the religious right and government officials, a belief of "well we can't let just ANYONE have free speech. If we do that, they might say things we disagree with"

Exactly. When I read the comments that the federal government backed the town, my first thought was "No shit. If they lose, Christianity doesnt get special treatment anymore."

I also fail to see how this could effect war memorials, and sound kind of like a red harring. Anyone want to explain that bit to me?

I also fail to see how this could effect war memorials, and sound kind of like a red harring. Anyone want to explain that bit to me?

I think the idea is that they think the ruling will either be that the government must allow equal access for all points of view (including hateful ones) or that they must not allow access for any point of view (meaning that old monuments may have to be torn down).

Also, many old war memorials contain religious imagery.

*shrug*

How old is this 10 commandments monument, does it have historical value? Also, can a monument really be considered free speech?

The way I see it, government doesn't just allow anyone to erect a monument anywhere, the government chooses how the parks should look, in conjunction with other organisations and perhaps democratic institutions. It decides based on what is appropriate, so you could argue that it's appropriate to allow these people to have their "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" because it reflects the surrounding society, culture or history (although I highly doubt it does), but I doubt you could argue for it based on free speech.

The way I see it, government doesn't just allow anyone to erect a monument

Yeah cause then they might erect *gasp* non-Christian monuments!


but I doubt you could argue for it based on free speech.

Well, a district court seemed to disagree with you here.

How old is this 10 commandments monument, does it have historical value? Also, can a monument really be considered free speech?

The Salt Lake City-based group wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the city's Pioneer Park, which is home to a Ten Commandments monument that was donated in 1971 by another private group.

Given that it was donated by a private group, yet apparently allowed and maintained on public land by the government, I would say that it could fall under free speech.

The way I see it, government doesn't just allow anyone to erect a monument anywhere, the government chooses how the parks should look, in conjunction with other organisations and perhaps democratic institutions.

If it is going to allow anyone private to erect a monument, however, it should not discriminate in that.

Now, if they wanted to say, "No permanent monuments will be erected here by private groups," that would be ok.

Yeah cause then they might erect *gasp* non-Christian monuments!


There's always going to be a threshold, there's never truly going to be absolute freedom in this matter, they're not going to erect a giant phallus or swastika for example.


Well, a district court seemed to disagree with you here.

Well duh.

personally, as long as the gov is not endorsing nor prohibiting any singular religion but will allow any group to put up their religous monuments (and keeping it fair by ways of number of monuments as well as size etc... ) I see no problem with it... especially if the maintenance of those monuments are done by the church group(s) and not by park personnel...

The Salt Lake City-based group wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the city's Pioneer Park, which is home to a Ten Commandments monument that was donated in 1971 by another private group.

Given that it was donated by a private group, yet apparently allowed and maintained on public land by the government, I would say that it could fall under free speech.


But I still think it's inherent in the council that they won't just put up anything that's donated to them, it's a bit silly to expect them to.


If it is going to allow anyone private to erect a monument, however, it should not discriminate in that.


No discrimination at all? Surely, at the very least, discrimination against highly explicit or offensive material?

How old is this 10 commandments monument, does it have historical value?

It was erected in 1971. It has the same arguable "historical value" that any Ten Commandments monument has.

Also, can a monument really be considered free speech?

That is part of the difficult question. On the one hand, one could say a monument in a public park is government speech and the government can control what is said. On the other hand, that raises Establishment Clause issues with the government "speaking" the Ten Commandments in the other monument.

EDIT: Further, the city didn't have to allow any monuments or any private monuments. But once it has said, "some private monuments are OK" it had better have a better reason for denying a private monument than "we don't like your religion."

The way I see it, government doesn't just allow anyone to erect a monument anywhere, the government chooses how the parks should look, in conjunction with other organisations and perhaps democratic institutions. It decides based on what is appropriate, so you could argue that it's appropriate to allow these people to have their "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" because it reflects the surrounding society, culture or history (although I highly doubt it does), but I doubt you could argue for it based on free speech.

No one is arguing that you can't have time, place, and manner restrictions on speech that are content-neutral. But the facts here are disputed as to whether the monument was restricted by anything other than an objection to its content.

Regardless, your "democracy decides what is appropriate" argument necessarily implies that government may limit speech within a public forum based on disagreement with its content. That is contrary to the very essence of the First Amendment freedom of speech.

(Note: I am simply arguing both sides in this and other posts. I haven't picked a side yet.)

I think the idea is that they think the ruling will either be that the government must allow equal access for all points of view (including hateful ones) or that they must not allow access for any point of view (meaning that old monuments may have to be torn down).

Also, many old war memorials contain religious imagery.

*shrug*

You are on the right track. For example, if allowing a Ten Commandments monument means you have to allow a Summum monument, why doesn't the Vietnam Memorial require a Viet Cong Memorial?

The problem is the Court did some fancy dancing in prior cases to uphold allowing "donated" Ten Commandment memorials. Some of that logic is coming back to bite the Court on the ass.

Transfer the ten commandments memorial to a better site.
Such as the spot where they test their latest missiles. :)

But I still think it's inherent in the council that they won't just put up anything that's donated to them, it's a bit silly to expect them to.

Then they probably shouldn't accept any such donation.

No discrimination at all? Surely, at the very least, discrimination against highly explicit or offensive material?

Depends. If they can make a reasonable argument that particular material would actually be harmful, they certainly could refuse it. For instance, a monument to lynching or something like that might be seen as a terroristic threat towards the black community, and thus might be disallowed.

You are on the right track. For example, if allowing a Ten Commandments monument means you have to allow a Summum monument, why doesn't the Vietnam Memorial require a Viet Cong Memorial?

LOL

I think that could be justified on the basis that the Vietnam Memorial is honoring our troops, while a Viet Cong Memorial would be honoring the enemy.

Were the war memorials in DC donated by private entities, though? Or were they contracted by the government?

On the other hand, that raises Establishment Clause issues with the government "speaking" the Ten Commandments in the other monument.


Perhaps this is the real issue then, if it has no historical value, it probably shouldn't be there in the first place.


No one is arguing that you can't have time, place, and manner restrictions on speech that are content-neutral. But the facts here are disputed as to whether the monument was restricted by anything other than an objection to its content.


Well, isn't the idea that it doesn't really represent anything to do with the areas greater society/culture and history a fair objection?


Regardless, your "democracy decides what is appropriate" argument necessarily implies that government may limit speech within a public forum based on disagreement with its content. That is contrary to the very essence of the First Amendment freedom of speech.


Well, as I said, I don't really consider it free speech, more as you say, government speech.

Depends. If they can make a reasonable argument that particular material would actually be harmful, they certainly could refuse it. For instance, a monument to lynching or something like that might be seen as a terroristic threat towards the black community, and thus might be disallowed.


Wouldn't the park being littered with superfluous statues, many of which are meaningless to most of the citizens, be considered harm enough?

Wouldn't the park being littered with superfluous statues, many of which are meaningless to most of the citizens, be considered harm enough?

If it is, then they shouldn't accept any. Or, if they do, each one should have a time limit during which it can take up a select spot.

Any statues put up permanently should be put up by the government itself. Of course, this means that they should have no religious bent, as that would violate separation of church and state.

Wouldn't the park being littered with superfluous statues, many of which are meaningless to most of the citizens, be considered harm enough?

if done without any guidelines... yes. but if guidelines are set to regulate size and what not... I can see it not being too bad.

If it is, then they shouldn't accept any. Or, if they do, each one should have a time limit during which it can take up a select spot.


I don't really like the idea of statues with time limits tbh.

if done without any guidelines... yes. but if guidelines are set to regulate size and what not... I can see it not being too bad.

Right, and an appropriate guideline would be, no statues that are meaningless to the vast majority of the citizens and that don't represent anything about the culture or history of the place or about a significant event or person etc..., right?

Exactly. When I read the comments that the federal government backed the town, my first thought was "No shit. If they lose, Christianity doesnt get special treatment anymore."

I also fail to see how this could effect war memorials, and sound kind of like a red harring. Anyone want to explain that bit to me?

I think they're refering to this bit.


High court hears dispute over religious monument (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/11-12-2008/20081112003505_19.html)
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer


The Summum argued, and a federal appeals court agreed, that Pleasant Grove can't allow some private donations in its public park and reject others.

The wording is vague which leads to the problem where one interpretation would be that anyone donating art would then require the governing body (state, city, whatever) to display and possibly maintain that art. This part doesn't seem to be arguing the religion angle at all. By pressing private donations they're essentially saying that if Fred the Artist bronzes their pet cats hairball, and then donates it to some governing body, then it must be displayed.

Although I don't really know why they think it would allow for removal or defacement of current displays.

Otherwise I agree with what's been said here in that they shouldn't have put up the first statue in the first place.

I don't really like the idea of statues with time limits tbh.

I don't really like the idea of discriminatory practice in government. I'm just putting forth alternatives in which they wouldn't have to be discriminatory.

I don't have a problem with displays being temporary, though. Public parks already often have temporary art displays and such.

Well?

I would think it would be an all or nothing situation. You allow all religions or deny all.

If they want to deny, then the 10 commandments must move.

I don't really like the idea of discriminatory practice in government. I'm just putting forth alternatives in which they wouldn't have to be discriminatory.


But they'd still have to be discriminatory, they couldn't allow anything to go up, even if it has a time limit.

Right, and an appropriate guideline would be, no statues that are meaningless to the vast majority of the citizens and that don't represent anything about the culture or history of the place or about a significant event or person etc..., right?

Not really. The entire point of free speech is that minority opinions can be heard. The number of people who it represents or who find it important to their culture is largely irrelevant.

But they'd still have to be discriminatory, they couldn't allow anything to go up, even if it has a time limit.

Sure they could - in the order in which it was offered.

If it is, then they shouldn't accept any. Or, if they do, each one should have a time limit during which it can take up a select spot.

Any statues put up permanently should be put up by the government itself. Of course, this means that they should have no religious bent, as that would violate separation of church and state.

But if the government erects the monument, don't they have the responsibility to make sure that nothing "hateful" is portrayed?

Not really. The entire point of free speech is that minority opinions can be heard. The number of people who it represents or who find it important to their culture is largely irrelevant.

Again, I don't consider this a free speech issue, read my other posts. Also, this isn't simply a statue that represents a minority opinion, this is an extreme minority, and doesn't represent any greater message, like if it were celebrating black pride for example.

Sure they could - in the order in which it was offered.

Again, this is patently false. As you already said, you wouldn't allow anything if it does 'harm' to the society, that counts as discrimination against harm.

But if the government erects the monument, don't they have the responsibility to make sure that nothing "hateful" is portrayed?

If the government erects the monument, they have the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not violate the separation of church and state. Thus, no religious monuments. Thus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion - as the 10 Commandments monument wouldn't be there.

It is the fact that they accepted a donation from a private entity - one that would go on public land - that caused this issue.


Again, I don't consider this a free speech issue, read my other posts. Also, this isn't simply a statue that represents a minority opinion, this is an extreme minority, and doesn't represent any greater message, like if it were celebrating black pride for example.

I don't really care how many people it represents. The fact that the town accepted one religious monument, but now will not accept another, represents a clear statement that one religion is superior to another. That's a problem.

Again, this is patently false. As you already said, you wouldn't allow anything if it does 'harm' to the society, that counts as discrimination against harm.

In that case, it wouldn't be discriminatory in a legal sense. All monuments that would cause harm would be blocked. That would be no more discriminatory than setting a speed limit at 45 because driving faster than that endangers others.

Edit: Also, to clarify, I didn't say that *I* wouldn't allow any particular thing. I said that the government could justify not allowing certain things.

If the government erects the monument, they have the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not violate the separation of church and state. Thus, no religious monuments. Thus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion - as the 10 Commandments monument wouldn't be there.

It is the fact that they accepted a donation from a private entity - one that would go on public land - that caused this issue.

But aren't other monuments potentially as fraught with controversy as a religious monument? Say the "Sons of Confederate Veterans" managed to get a memorial to Confederate soldiers placed at Kennessaw, wouldn't that anger people that saw the Confederacy as a bunch of slave-owning bigots? Shouldn't that be prohibited, too?

Right, and an appropriate guideline would be, no statues that are meaningless to the vast majority of the citizens and that don't represent anything about the culture or history of the place or about a significant event or person etc..., right?

so Utah can have mormon - baised statues and no one else? Hawaii can have Statues honering the Gods of Hawaii and no Buddists, or any other religion?

alot of folks know about the wiccan, muslims, christian religion (of course they tend to know the wrong things about them).

how about this guideline.

set $ for so many months. maintenance is done by the religious group and will not be touched by park maintenance unless it presents a safty hazard/no payment is made and appropriate bill will be sent to the registered group. it has to fit a #x#x# dimension and cannot contain scenes of a graphic nature. a #x# plaque can accompany the statue.

and you have a section of the park set aside for those statues.

I don't really care how many people it represents. The fact that the town accepted one religious monument, but now will not accept another, represents a clear statement that one religion is superior to another. That's a problem.


What a silly assumption to make. The government obviously wouldn't put the monument up, even if the other 10 commandments monument wasn't there also. You're also assuming that only religious 'superiority' is the only thing that factors in here, and not things like appropriateness, and whether it actually has any value to the park. It's neither appropriate to put that statue there, neither does it have any value to the majority of the citizens. You may say that you don't care about this, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't either, and are doing this purely because they think Christianity is superior.


In that case, it wouldn't be discriminatory in a legal sense. All monuments that would cause harm would be blocked.

In a legal sense just means, its discrimination, but the courts can't stop the government. Plus, I'm not sure if your definition of harm is an actual legal definition, and if there is such thing as a legal definition of harm.

so Utah can have mormon - baised statues and no one else? Hawaii can have Statues honering the Gods of Hawaii and no Buddists, or any other religion?


I don't think there should be any universal rules, I think the government should just decide what is appropriate.


set $ for so many months. maintenance is done by the religious group and will not be touched by park maintenance unless it presents a safty hazard/no payment is made and appropriate bill will be sent to the registered group. it has to fit a #x#x# dimension and cannot contain scenes of a graphic nature. a #x# plaque can accompany the statue.

and you have a section of the park set aside for those statues.

Perhaps, regardless this has little to do with the OP. There is no sanctioned sections of the park where the public are free to prop up statues there.

But aren't other monuments potentially as fraught with controversy as a religious monument?

Quite possibly, but not all controversy is covered under the 1st Amendment.

Say the "Sons of Confederate Veterans" managed to get a memorial to Confederate soldiers placed at Kennessaw, wouldn't that anger people that saw the Confederacy as a bunch of slave-owning bigots? Shouldn't that be prohibited, too?

That would really be up to the people who would end up paying for it.


What a silly assumption to make.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact. The town here is showing a clear bias in favor of a particular religious view.

The government obviously wouldn't put the monument up, even if the other 10 commandments monument wasn't there also. You're also assuming that only religious 'superiority' is the only thing that factors in here, and not things like appropriateness, and whether it actually has any value to the park. It's neither appropriate to put that statue there, neither does it have any value to the majority of the citizens. You may say that you don't care about this, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't either, and are doing this purely because they think Christianity is superior.

If they think religious monuments have value to the park, but only specifically Christian (and a particular brand of Christianity at that) ones, that quite clearly reveals a bias towards Christianity. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

In a legal sense just means, its discrimination, but the courts can't stop the government. Plus, I'm not sure if your definition of harm is an actual legal definition, and if there is such thing as a legal definition of harm.

There are all sorts of legal definitions of harm - some that can lead to criminal prosecution and others that can lead to civil cases.

But aren't other monuments potentially as fraught with controversy as a religious monument? Say the "Sons of Confederate Veterans" managed to get a memorial to Confederate soldiers placed at Kennessaw, wouldn't that anger people that saw the Confederacy as a bunch of slave-owning bigots? Shouldn't that be prohibited, too?
There isn't a specific constitutional provision that governmental officials may not anger anybody (that would deprive Americans of the precious right to hate politicians!) but there is a constitutional prohibition against favoring one religion over another.

It's not an assumption. It's a fact. The town here is showing a clear bias in favor of a particular religious view.


Even if this is true, the fact that they aren't allowing this specific statue is not an argument for that in the slightest, which was my main point.


If they think religious monuments have value to the park, but only specifically Christian (and a particular brand of Christianity at that) ones

Assumption, the article does not show this to be the case in the slightest. It shows that they wont allow one specific statue, that doesn't mean they wont allow ANY statue if it isn't Christian.


There are all sorts of legal definitions of harm - some that can lead to criminal prosecution and others that can lead to civil cases.

Regardless, it's still discrimination, even if it isn't illegal.

Regardless, it's still discrimination, even if it isn't illegal.

Your semantic bullshit is noted.

Your semantic bullshit is noted.

Uhuh, and the rest of my post?

Uhuh, and the rest of my post?

The rest of your post refers to a load of BS as well. The town is giving excuses to hide a (rather thinly veiled) religious bias.

The private entity that donated the 10 Commandments monument is an international group. It hardly has special ties to the community. And the 10 Commandments have no more ties to the history of this town in particular than any other religious event that is purported to have happened thousands of miles away thousands of years ago - like, for instance, an extra set of commandments entrusted to Moses.

Thus, there is no more justification for the 10 Commandments monument than there is for this one, yet this one is being blocked.

The rest of your post refers to a load of BS as well. The town is giving excuses to hide a (rather thinly veiled) religious bias.

The private entity that donated the 10 Commandments monument is an international group. It hardly has special ties to the community. And the 10 Commandments have no more ties to the history of this town in particular than any other religious event that is purported to have happened thousands of miles away thousands of years ago - like, for instance, an extra set of commandments entrusted to Moses.

Thus, there is no more justification for the 10 Commandments monument than there is for this one, yet this one is being blocked.

Ok, so you're not going to address my post, that's fine.

Ok, so you're not going to address my post, that's fine.

Erm....that was addressing your post.

Erm....that was addressing your post.

First few words: "Even if this is true.."

First few words: "Even if this is true.."

Indeed. You're arguing that there is nothing to suggest that this denial is religiously motivated.

I argued otherwise.

Indeed. You're arguing that there is nothing to suggest that this denial is religiously motivated.

I argued otherwise.

I'm arguing that even if it does come from a broader religious bias, they shouldn't allow that statue anyway, and not allowing the statue, in itself, is not a religious bias, since there could be shit loads of reasons why.

I don't think there should be any universal rules, I think the government should just decide what is appropriate.

So the First Amendment can just fuck off?


Perhaps, regardless this has little to do with the OP. There is no sanctioned sections of the park where the public are free to prop up statues there.

I'm arguing that even if it does come from a broader religious bias, they shouldn't allow that statue anyway, and not allowing the statue, in itself, is not a religious bias, since there could be shit loads of reasons why.

And what are those shit loads of reasons in this case?

For someone chiding others about the OP facts, you seem to be fairly imaginative in your use of what we know.

BTW, the history of 10 Commandments monument is similar to that of such monuments across the country at that time. Cecil B. DeMille wanted to promote his movie "The Ten Commandments," so, using the Fraternal Order of Eagles he paid for decalogues to be erected all over the place. Nothing special about the heritage of Pleasant Grove is involved.

I have some interesting ideas for new monuments. :D

I'm arguing that even if it does come from a broader religious bias, they shouldn't allow that statue anyway, and not allowing the statue, in itself, is not a religious bias, since there could be shit loads of reasons why.

If they shouldn't allow this monument, then the 10 Commandments one shouldn't be allowed either.

So the First Amendment can just fuck off?


Other than that of course, although according to the parameters in this thread, the only way not to break this amendment is to either have no statues at all that have anything to do with religion, or to have a statue of every single religion on the planet, both extremes are silly.


And what are those shit loads of reasons in this case?


In this specific case, I don't know for sure. I'm arguing that the act of not allowing this statue is not, in itself, a sign that the state itself thinks Christianity is superior.

As for possible reasons why any council might not want to put this statue up:

They may not want another statue at all
They may think that it will not mean anything to the majority of citizens
They may think it will cause dissent among the citizens
etc...
OR
They may even think that Summum is inferior to Christianity. As I said however, it doesn't take much imagination to realise that this may not be the only possible reason.


BTW, the history of 10 Commandments monument is similar to that of such monuments across the country at that time. Cecil B. DeMille wanted to promote his movie "The Ten Commandments," so, using the Fraternal Order of Eagles he paid for decalogues to be erected all over the place. Nothing special about the heritage of Pleasant Grove is involved.

Also if you remember, I did specifically say that I'm not sure if that 10 commandments statue should be there either.

Other than that of course, although according to the parameters in this thread, the only way not to break this amendment is to either have no statues at all that have anything to do with religion, or to have a statue of every single religion on the planet, both extremes are silly.

Not technically correct. It's either not to have monuments of a religious nature, or to equally allow all religions to erect such monuments.

I doubt you'd have to worry about someone putting up the money to erect a big statue to Ra in a small Utah town.

In this specific case, I don't know for sure. I'm arguing that the act of not allowing this statue is not, in itself, a sign that the state itself thinks Christianity is superior.

In and of itself, no, of course not.

In the context of the actual occurrence, on the other hand, it is.

Not technically correct. It's either not to have monuments of a religious nature, or to equally allow all religions to erect such monuments.


Still a silly extreme IMO.


In the context of the actual occurrence, on the other hand, it is.

I assume you have proof?

Still a silly extreme IMO.

Why? Why should the government - one that is supposed to allow religious freedom - be allowed to show bias towards certain religions?

I assume you have proof?

It's all right there in the articles. The town is claiming that their decision is not based on religious bias, but is instead based in a set of criteria used to determine what goes up in the park. Problem is, the 10 Commandments monument doesn't meet that criteria any better than the new proposed amendment. Thus, the difference is the particular religious view being expressed.

Why? Why should the government - one that is supposed to allow religious freedom - be allowed to show bias towards certain religions?


Loaded question, accepting or rejecting certain donations as I have already said, doesn't in itself mean you actually show a bias to the religions who's statues you accept or reject. Anyway, enforcing such a law would just mean no council would accept a privately donated statue, because that would mean that if they ever got donated one, they would be FORCED to prop it up. A ridiculous demand on the council.


It's all right there in the articles. The town is claiming that their decision is not based on religious bias, but is instead based in a set of criteria used to determine what goes up in the park. Problem is, the 10 Commandments monument doesn't meet that criteria any better than the new proposed amendment. Thus, the difference is the particular religious view being expressed.

You could argue (although again, I'm not sure if that statue should be there either) that the 10 commandments does, since the town is largely Christian and has a Christian history, thus the 10 commandments has longstanding ties to the community (one of its parameters).

Loaded question, accepting or rejecting certain donations as I have already said, doesn't in itself mean you actually show a bias to the religions who's statues you accept or reject.

You claimed that the government should not have to provide equal access for all religious views. That does, quite clearly, allow the government to show a bias towards particular religions.

Anyway, enforcing such a law would just mean no council would accept a privately donated statue, because that would mean that if they ever got donated one, they would be FORCED to prop it up. A ridiculous demand on the council.

*shrug*

The demands of equality.

You could argue (although again, I'm not sure if that statue should be there either) that the 10 commandments does, since the town is largely Christian and has a Christian history, thus the 10 commandments has longstanding ties to the community (one of its parameters).

The "longstanding ties to the community" refers to the donor, not the subject matter.

And the town is secular - as is all government in this country. Tying it to Christianity would be showing a clear bias towards that religion.

Many of its people might be Christian, and that is all well and good. But people of minority religions in the town are equal citizens and their religion should receive equal consideration by the government.

You claimed that the government should not have to provide equal access for all religious views. That does, quite clearly, allow the government to show a bias towards particular religions.


You need to stop making statements based on invalid premises. Not putting every single statue that gets donated to you in a park =/= not providing equal access for all religious views. What the hell does equal access in this case even mean, seriously, in this context 'equal access' is completely meaningless. Equal access to what, space in the park?


The "longstanding ties to the community" refers to the donor, not the subject matter.


Where does it say that?


And the town is secular - as is all government in this country. Tying it to Christianity would be showing a clear bias towards that religion.


You mean the council is secular then, and I never said that it wasn't. The statue doesn't have to relate to the 'history of the council'.


Many of its people might be Christian, and that is all well and good. But people of minority religions in the town are equal citizens and their religion should receive equal consideration by the government.

Right, equal consideration =/= it has to agree to what each religion demands equally. Also, again saying no to one of them doesn't mean they think a religion is superior. It's really very simple: saying a religion is part of your history and has ties to the community =/= this religion is better than your religion.

Other than that of course, although according to the parameters in this thread, the only way not to break this amendment is to either have no statues at all that have anything to do with religion, or to have a statue of every single religion on the planet, both extremes are silly.



In this specific case, I don't know for sure. I'm arguing that the act of not allowing this statue is not, in itself, a sign that the state itself thinks Christianity is superior.

As for possible reasons why any council might not want to put this statue up:

They may not want another statue at all
They may think that it will not mean anything to the majority of citizens
They may think it will cause dissent among the citizens
etc...
OR
They may even think that Summum is inferior to Christianity. As I said however, it doesn't take much imagination to realise that this may not be the only possible reason.



Also if you remember, I did specifically say that I'm not sure if that 10 commandments statue should be there either.


Just come out and say it. Youre ok with Christianity getting special treatment. Youve already admitted the government should just tell us what what is appropriate for public display and whats not.

It would be fairly consistant with your posting history.

Just come out and say it. Youre ok with Christianity getting special treatment. Youve already admitted the government should just tell us what what is appropriate for public display and whats not.


Uhuh, even though I've already explicitly said that I'm not even sure that the 10 commandments statue should be put in place. And the council DOES and has the right to (subject to limitations of course) decide how the city and its public properties look, it's not a matter of should.

You need to stop making statements based on invalid premises. Not putting every single statue that gets donated to you in a park =/= not providing equal access for all religious views.

It is if you permit some religious views and not others to put up monuments.

What the hell does equal access in this case even mean, seriously, in this context 'equal access' is completely meaningless. Equal access to what, space in the park?

Yes. The government is allowing some people to use public space in order to spread a message - in this case, a religious one. Equal access would thus mean that anyone wishing to spread a religious message would have to be equally allowed to do so.

Where does it say that?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1027/ten-commandments-displays

According to Pleasant Grove officials, however, the city did not violate the Free Speech Clause because the city was merely following its policy of accepting display donations only if the display either directly relates to the city's history or the donor has longstanding ties to the community.

Right, equal consideration =/= it has to agree to what each religion demands equally. Also, again saying no to one of them doesn't mean they think a religion is superior. It's really very simple: saying a religion is part of your history and has ties to the community =/= this religion is better than your religion.

Any religion in which there are members in the community has equal ties to the community.

Other than that of course, although according to the parameters in this thread, the only way not to break this amendment is to either have no statues at all that have anything to do with religion, or to have a statue of every single religion on the planet, both extremes are silly.

There is nothing silly or extreme about the notion that government must, under the First Amendment, remain neutral among religions and between religion and non-religion.

The Supreme Court explained in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-1693.html), 545 U.S. 844 (2005):

The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the "First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15-16 (1947); Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, at 53. When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government's ostensible object is to take sides. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 335 (1987) ("Lemon's 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing [government] from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters"). Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the "understanding, reached ... after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens ... ." Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 718 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting). By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government "sends the ... message to ... nonadherents 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members... .' " Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290, 309-310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring)).

Why should the government put up or allow to be erected on public property monuments that clearly favor/echo/endorse a particular religion?

If the government does put up or allow to be erected on public property monuments that clearly favor/echo/endorse a particular religion, why is it absurd to say it must also allow monuments from other religions?


In this specific case, I don't know for sure. I'm arguing that the act of not allowing this statue is not, in itself, a sign that the state itself thinks Christianity is superior.

As for possible reasons why any council might not want to put this statue up:

They may not want another statue at all
They may think that it will not mean anything to the majority of citizens
They may think it will cause dissent among the citizens
etc...
OR
They may even think that Summum is inferior to Christianity. As I said however, it doesn't take much imagination to realise that this may not be the only possible reason.

OK, we could dig into the actual facts of this case or we can indulge your hypotheticals. Either way your argument fails.

In this actual case, some of the relevant facts are:

the city has multiple monuments and artifacts of various kinds in this particular park, including not just the 10 Commandments but a "Nauvoo temple stone" (an artifact from a Mormon Temple in Nauvoo, Illinois)


the city has never before rejected a proposed monument


the city admits it rejected the Summum monument because of (a) its content and (b) the identity of its donor


the city has not, however, explained how the content of the Summum monument would cause any harm to the park, public, etc.


the city/community in question is predominately Mormon, but the version of the 10 Commandments quoted in the Eagles' monument is not the Mormon version of the 10 Commandments


Turning to your hypothetical excuses for denying the Summum monument, the "majority wouldn't find it meaningful" and "it may cause dissent" are both obviously content-based objections and rely on little more than local prejudice. The "don't want any more monuments" argument would be content-neutral and could serve as a rational basis for denying the Summum monument. It still raises the question, however, of discrimination in allowing some of the existing monuments to have been erected, but not allowing this one.


Also if you remember, I did specifically say that I'm not sure if that 10 commandments statue should be there either.

This is a classic example of you trying to have things both ways in an argument. You argue both above and below for the allowance of religious discrimination in the erection of monuments, but try to avoid the inherent bigotry of that position by hedging your bets.

This is not an easy case and there is room for all of us to be uncertain and somewhat contradictory in our opinions. But you have a habit of this type of duplicity that I have found annoying in the past.

You could argue (although again, I'm not sure if that statue should be there either) that the 10 commandments does, since the town is largely Christian and has a Christian history, thus the 10 commandments has longstanding ties to the community (one of its parameters).

As noted above, what you "could argue" is (1) factually untrue and (2) merely an excuse for religious discrimination.

I have no problem with the idea that public park monuments are not necessarily a public forum, but rather are a form of government speech. The problem with that analysis, however, is that it runs head-on into the Establishment Clause when it comes to the religious monuments already in the park.

Equal access would thus mean that anyone wishing to spread a religious message would have to be equally allowed to do so.


And I'm arguing that each religious community is EQUALLY allowed to donate a monument to the park, and are EQUALLY subject to the same parameters. Please address my argument, because at the moment you're just repeating the same old platitudes that I have no interest in. You could argue that the parameters itself are promoting one religion over another, or you could argue that the 10 commandments also doesn't live up to the parameters, you are wasting considerable time not doing this.


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1027/ten-commandments-displays

According to Pleasant Grove officials, however, the city did not violate the Free Speech Clause because the city was merely following its policy of accepting display donations only if the display either directly relates to the city's history or the donor has longstanding ties to the community.


Again, one could say that the 10 commandments relates to the Christian history of the town, but I'm not sure how direct the link is, hence me not being sure whether that statue is suitable either.


Any religion in which there are members in the community has equal ties to the community.

Uhuh, so if me and my flatmate set up a religion called awesomenism, and demanded that the council put a statue up to celebrate, would you say that this new religion, with its whole 2 members, has equal ties to the community to Christianity, where over half of the community identifies themselves as that?

There is nothing silly or extreme about the notion that government must, under the First Amendment, remain neutral among religions and between religion and non-religion.

And I never disagreed with this. Has it ever occurred to you that I could be arguing (in fact I am) those extremes are going much further than the first amendment requires?


Why should the government put up or allow to be erected on public property monuments that clearly favor/echo/endorse a particular religion?


Why do people keep asking questions based on such extremely debatable premises? I don't think that declaring that one religion has more ties to the community than others actually amounts to religion x being better than religion z, and thus endorsing religion x over religion z.


In this actual case, some of the relevant facts are:
the city has multiple monuments and artifacts of various kinds in this particular park, including not just the 10 Commandments but a "Nauvoo temple stone" (an artifact from a Mormon Temple in Nauvoo, Illinois)

the city has never before rejected a proposed monument


I don't see what this has to do with anything.


the city admits it rejected the Summum monument because of (a) its content and (b) the identity of its donor


Of course they did! What else could they have possibly rejected it based on? Once you remove the content, and the donor, you have nothing.


the city has not, however, explained how the content of the Summum monument would cause any harm to the park, public, etc.


The city is not obliged to either. Remember it's government speech as you said, thus it's not about allowing any non-illegal/offensive material to be put in the park, the council chooses how the park is decorated. This is only about whether the government is promoting one religion over another, yet NSG seem to find it difficult to stick to this at times.


the city/community in question is predominately Mormon, but the version of the 10 Commandments quoted in the Eagles' monument is not the Mormon version of the 10 Commandments


How predominately? And I wasn't even aware that there was any signficant difference between the 10 commandments and the Mormon 10 commandments, google found very little.


Turning to your hypothetical excuses for denying the Summum monument, the "majority wouldn't find it meaningful" and "it may cause dissent" are both obviously content-based objections and rely on little more than local prejudice.

Content-based STILL doesn't mean they actually think one religion is better than another, as I have explained earlier.


This is a classic example of you trying to have things both ways in an argument. You argue both above and below for the allowance of religious discrimination in the erection of monuments, but try to avoid the inherent bigotry of that position by hedging your bets.


But I can have it both ways, I can think that both statues are not suitable, and I can also think that the fact that one religious monument is there, but not another, is not nescecerally because they think one religion is better than the other. It's also very annoying when you label something like that as inherently bigoted, it seems like rather knee-jerkish talking point that's very easy to say, but not very easy to back up on a case that, as you say yourself, is 'not an easy case'.


As noted above, what you "could argue" is (1) factually untrue

Your arguments do not convince me of that.


(2) merely an excuse for religious discrimination.


Nor that.


The problem with that analysis, however, is that it runs head-on into the Establishment Clause when it comes to the religious monuments already in the park.

Yes, exactly, now the only thing we should be focusing on right now, is
a) whether the 10 commandments monument lives up to the parameters the council sets for putting up monuments.
b) whether saying that a monument doesn't live up to these parameters nescecerally means they think it's inferior.

Wait, what -are- the seven apho-whatsits?

Wait, what -are- the seven apho-whatsits?

The short answer is:

I. THE PRINCIPLE OF PSYCHOKINESIS

II. THE PRINCIPLE OF CORRESPONDENCE

III. THE PRINCIPLE OF VIBRATION

IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF OPPOSITION

V. THE PRINCIPLE OF RHYTHM

VI. THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

VII. THE PRINCIPLE OF GENDER

Here (http://www.summum.us/philosophy/tencommandments.shtml) and here (http://www.summum.us/philosophy/principles.shtml) are Summum's explanation of where the Seven Aphorisms come from and what they are.

Respondent Summum is a § 501(c)(3) taxexempt religious organization, founded in 1975 and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. “Summum” is derived from Latin and refers to the “sum total of all creation.” The Summum church incorporates elements of Gnostic Christianity, teaching that spiritual
knowledge is experiential and that through devotion comes revelation, which “modifies human perceptions, and transfigures the individual.” Central to Summum religious belief and practice are the Seven Principles of Creation (the “Seven Aphorisms”). According to Summum doctrine, the Seven Aphorisms were inscribed on the original tablets handed down by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. Because Moses believed that the Israelites
were not ready to receive the Aphorisms, he shared them only with a select group of people. In the Summum Exodus account, Moses then destroyed
the original tablets, traveled back to Mount Sinai, and returned with a second set of tablets containing the Ten Commandments.

Here is the bit I find most interesting: Summum has been trying for many years to get monuments of the Seven Aphorisms erected in Utah communities (particularly in the Salt Lake City area) where there are monuments of the Ten Commandments:

In 1994, Summum asked the local municipality of Salt Lake County for permission to erect a monument containing the Principles of Summum next to the Ten Commandments. Summum's request was promptly denied and Summum responded by filing a grievance against the County of Salt Lake asserting that Summum was denied its right to free speech. The government had created a public forum by erecting a monument of the Ten Commandments and in doing so, other forms of speech should be allowed. In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit drew the following conclusion in a ruling on the case:

"We conclude that Summum's amended complaint sufficiently alleges that a limited public forum has been created and that the County engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of Summum's free speech rights."

Rather than allowing Summum to erect its monument, Salt Lake County removed their Ten Commandments monument.

It is important to point out that Summum is not interested in the removal of the Ten Commandments from government property. Rather, Summum wishes to erect its own monument next to the Ten Commandments. Summum wishes to exercise its right to freedom of speech.

Summum approached the City of Ogden, Utah, with a request to place a monument next to their Ten Commandments monument and was also denied. In a grievance brought against the City of Ogden, the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit drew the following conclusion in their 2002 ruling:

"The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment compels the City of Ogden to treat with equal dignity speech from divergent religious perspectives. On these facts, the City cannot display the Ten Commandments Monument while declining to display the Seven Principles Monument."

Rather than allowing Summum to erect its monument, the City of Ogden removed its Ten Commandments monument.

In 2003, Summum filed a grievance against the City of Duchesne for disallowing Summum the right to erect a monument next to the city's Ten Commandments monument. To avoid a ruling forcing Duchesne to allow Summum's monument, Duchesne converted into private property a 10 foot by 10 foot section of land surrounding the Ten Commandments, located in the midst of the city owned park. The Ten Commandments display was then enclosed with a 2 foot high plastic picket fence and Duchesne is able to continue their discrimination.

In 2005, Summum filed a grievance against the City of Pleasant Grove for refusing to allow Summum to erect its monument of the Principles of Creation next to the Ten Commandments. [Which is the currrent case before the Supreme Court.]
link (http://www.summum.us/about/freespeech.shtml)

As to the appropriateness of the 10 Commandments monument, I agree with the dissents in Van Orden v. Perry (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500#dissent1), 545 U.S. 677 (2005), excerpts of which I quote below:

The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the full text of one version of the Ten Commandments. The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the State. It is significant because, and only because, it communicates the following message:

"I AM the LORD thy God.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

"Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.

"Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

"Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

"Thou shalt not kill.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery.

"Thou shalt not steal.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

Viewed on its face, Texas' display has no purported connection to God's role in the formation of Texas or the founding of our Nation; nor does it provide the reasonable observer with any basis to guess that it was erected to honor any individual or organization. The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This State endorses the divine code of the "Judeo-Christian" God.

For those of us who learned to recite the King James version of the text long before we understood the meaning of some of its words, God's Commandments may seem like wise counsel. The question before this Court, however, is whether it is counsel that the State of Texas may proclaim without violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If any fragment of Jefferson's metaphorical "wall of separation between church and State" is to be preserved--if there remains any meaning to the "wholesome 'neutrality' of which this Court's [Establishment Clause] cases speak," School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 222 (1963)--a negative answer to that question is mandatory.

....

The monolith displayed on Texas Capitol grounds cannot be discounted as a passive acknowledgment of religion, nor can the State's refusal to remove it upon objection be explained as a simple desire to preserve a historic relic. This Nation's resolute commitment to neutrality with respect to religion is flatly inconsistent with the plurality's wholehearted validation of an official state endorsement of the message that there is one, and only one, God.

...

The reason this message stands apart is that the Decalogue is a venerable religious text. As we held 25 years ago, it is beyond dispute that "[t]he Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths." Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39, 41 (1980) (per curiam) (footnote omitted). For many followers, the Commandments represent the literal word of God as spoken to Moses and repeated to his followers after descending from Mount Sinai. The message conveyed by the Ten Commandments thus cannot be analogized to an appendage to a common article of commerce ("In God we Trust") or an incidental part of a familiar recital ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"). Thankfully, the plurality does not attempt to minimize the religious significance of the Ten Commandments. Ante, at 10 ("Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious--they were so viewed at their inception and so remain"); ante, at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring); see also McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., post, at 19 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Attempts to secularize what is unquestionably a sacred text defy credibility and disserve people of faith.

The profoundly sacred message embodied by the text inscribed on the Texas monument is emphasized by the especially large letters that identify its author: "I AM the LORD thy God." See Appendix, infra. It commands present worship of Him and no other deity. It directs us to be guided by His teaching in the current and future conduct of all of our affairs. It instructs us to follow a code of divine law, some of which has informed and been integrated into our secular legal code ("Thou shalt not kill"), but much of which has not ("Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images... . Thou shalt not covet").

Moreover, despite the Eagles' best efforts to choose a benign nondenominational text, the Ten Commandments display projects not just a religious, but an inherently sectarian message. There are many distinctive versions of the Decalogue, ascribed to by different religions and even different denominations within a particular faith; to a pious and learned observer, these differences may be of enormous religious significance. See Lubet, The Ten Commandments in Alabama, 15 Constitutional Commentary 471, 474-476 (Fall 1998). In choosing to display this version of the Commandments, Texas tells the observer that the State supports this side of the doctrinal religious debate. The reasonable observer, after all, has no way of knowing that this text was the product of a compromise, or that there is a rationale of any kind for the text's selection.

The Establishment Clause, if nothing else, forbids government from "specifying details upon which men and women who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world are known to differ." Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 641 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Given that the chosen text inscribed on the Ten Commandments monument invariably places the State at the center of a serious sectarian dispute, the display is unquestionably unconstitutional under our case law. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244 (1982) ("The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another").

Even if, however, the message of the monument, despite the inscribed text, fairly could be said to represent the belief system of all Judeo-Christians, it would still run afoul of the Establishment Clause by prescribing a compelled code of conduct from one God, namely a Judeo-Christian God, that is rejected by prominent polytheistic sects, such as Hinduism, as well as nontheistic religions, such as Buddhism. See, e.g., Allegheny County, 492 U. S., at 615 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) ("The simultaneous endorsement of Judaism and Christianity is no less constitutionally infirm than the endorsement of Christianity alone"). And, at the very least, the text of the Ten Commandments impermissibly commands a preference for religion over irreligion. See, e.g., id., at 590 (The Establishment Clause "guarantee[s] religious liberty and equality to the 'infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism' " (quoting Wallace, 472 U. S., at 52)). Any of those bases, in my judgment, would be sufficient to conclude that the message should not be proclaimed by the State of Texas on a permanent monument at the seat of its government.

....

Recognizing the diversity of religious and secular beliefs held by Texans and by all Americans, it seems beyond peradventure that allowing the seat of government to serve as a stage for the propagation of an unmistakably Judeo-Christian message of piety would have the tendency to make nonmonotheists and nonbelievers "feel like [outsiders] in matters of faith, and [strangers] in the political community." Pinette, 515 U. S., at 799 (Stevens, J., dissenting). "[D]isplays of this kind inevitably have a greater tendency to emphasize sincere and deeply felt differences among individuals than to achieve an ecumenical goal." Allegheny County, 492 U. S., at 651 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).19

Even more than the display of a religious symbol on government property, see Pinette, 515 U. S., at 797 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Allegheny County, 492 U. S., at 650-651 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), displaying this sectarian text at the state capitol should invoke a powerful presumption of invalidity. As Justice Souter's opinion persuasively demonstrates, the physical setting in which the Texas monument is displayed--far from rebutting that presumption--actually enhances the religious content of its message. See post, at 6-8. The monument's permanent fixture at the seat of Texas government is of immense significance. The fact that a monument:

"is installed on public property implies official recognition and reinforcement of its message. That implication is especially strong when the sign stands in front of the seat of government itself. The 'reasonable observer' of any symbol placed unattended in front of any capitol in the world will normally assume that the sovereign--which is not only the owner of that parcel of real estate but also the lawgiver for the surrounding territory--has sponsored and facilitated its message." Pinette, 515 U. S., at 801-802 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

Critical examination of the Decalogue's prominent display at the seat of Texas government, rather than generic citation to the role of religion in American life, unmistakably reveals on which side of the "slippery slope," ante, at 8 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment), this display must fall. God, as the author of its message, the Eagles, as the donor of the monument, and the State of Texas, as its proud owner, speak with one voice for a common purpose--to encourage Texans to abide by the divine code of a "Judeo-Christian" God. If this message is permissible, then the shining principle of neutrality to which we have long adhered is nothing more than mere shadow.

....

The Eagles may donate as many monuments as they choose to be displayed in front of Protestant churches, benevolent organizations' meeting places, or on the front lawns of private citizens. The expurgated text of the King James version of the Ten Commandments that they have crafted is unlikely to be accepted by Catholic parishes, Jewish synagogues, or even some Protestant denominations, but the message they seek to convey is surely more compatible with church property than with property that is located on the government side of the metaphorical wall.

The judgment of the Court in this case stands for the proposition that the Constitution permits governmental displays of sacred religious texts. This makes a mockery of the constitutional ideal that government must remain neutral between religion and irreligion. If a State may endorse a particular deity's command to "have no other gods before me," it is difficult to conceive of any textual display that would run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Now the majority in Van Orden came up with a variety of excuses for why this clear logic didn't prevail, but it is the fact that some of those excuses run headlong into the questions raised by the Summum case.

The city is not obliged to either. Remember it's government speech as you said, thus it's not about allowing any non-illegal/offensive material to be put in the park, the council chooses how the park is decorated. This is only about whether the government is promoting one religion over another, yet NSG seem to find it difficult to stick to this at times.

I'm working on a response to all you various points, but I want to make clear I never said I believe this is government speech. That is one of the arguments made by one side.

But, let us assume that it is government speech and not a public forum, how does the government saying "I AM the LORD thy God." and "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." NOT endorse a particular religion or religion over non-religion?

And I'm arguing that each religious community is EQUALLY allowed to donate a monument to the park, and are EQUALLY subject to the same parameters. Please address my argument, because at the moment you're just repeating the same old platitudes that I have no interest in.

1. There is a factual dispute in the case as to whether Pleasant Grove has any established parameters or whether they simply made some up in response to this litigation.

2. That said, the parameters the city claims it used are NOT NEUTRAL -- something you yourself admit later on. "Equal access" is denied if some speech is being censored based on the content of the message or the identity of the speaker.

3. That is not to say that allowing any speech means you must allow all speech. First, you can have time, space, and manner requirements which are content neutral. Second, there are well-established categories of speech that are not protected because it is harmful and/or worthless (defamation, obscenity, fighting words, etc.) The limits imposed by Pleasant Grove in this case don't relate to either of these permitted limitations.

You could argue that the parameters itself are promoting one religion over another, or you could argue that the 10 commandments also doesn't live up to the parameters, you are wasting considerable time not doing this.

Both these statements are true and have been argued and are being argued here.


Again, one could say that the 10 commandments relates to the Christian history of the town, but I'm not sure how direct the link is, hence me not being sure whether that statue is suitable either.

WTF? You don't know that the town has a "Christian history!" In fact, what the hell is a "Christian history"?

Regardless, a rule that said the establishment or favortism toward a religion is OK if it is the "historically dominant" religion is NOT reconcilable with the First Amendment.


Uhuh, so if me and my flatmate set up a religion called awesomenism, and demanded that the council put a statue up to celebrate, would you say that this new religion, with its whole 2 members, has equal ties to the community to Christianity, where over half of the community identifies themselves as that?

1. Are you implying that Summum is not a legitimate religion. 'Cuz the IRS and the courts (and the members of that church) disagree with you.

2. Summum isn't requesting that city put up a statue to celebrate Summum, but rather to allow Summum to pay for a statue the same way the Eagles did.

3. Regardless, if your religion is real and sincere, you should have equal rights regarding free speech and freedom of religion as any other church. Part of the whole point of the First Amendment is that the majority doesn't simply rule regarding speech and religion.

And I never disagreed with this. Has it ever occurred to you that I could be arguing (in fact I am) those extremes are going much further than the first amendment requires?

Then you are blowing smoke. I've explained why the absence of religious statues is (1) not extreme and (2) required by the First Amendment. You have yet to explain why either (1) or (2) is untrue.


Why do people keep asking questions based on such extremely debatable premises? I don't think that declaring that one religion has more ties to the community than others actually amounts to religion x being better than religion z, and thus endorsing religion x over religion z.

Per my prior posts, how does prominently displaying in a public park the 10 Commandments not endorse the contents of the 10 Commandments or even the existence of the decalogue? Especially when you specifically say you won't allow any alternative to the 10 Commandments to be similarly displayed?


I don't see what this has to do with anything.

It has to do with several things. Mostly with disputing your imagined facts. The park has a wide variety of monuments including at least 2 religious monuments other than the one proposed by the Summum. Further, this is the first and only time the city has rejected a donated monument -- suggesting there is something about this particular monument the city doesn't like.



Of course they did! What else could they have possibly rejected it based on? Once you remove the content, and the donor, you have nothing.

As I explained, time, place, and manner restrictions are perfectly permissible. So too are limitations on certain categories of extreme speech. Other than that, the government has no place discriminating between messages or speakers in a public forum.

(Note: you have to pick your poison: If this is a public forum, then government can't censor based on content or speaker. If this is not a public forum, then what the fuck are the Eagles doing erecting a monument to the 10 Commandments?)


The city is not obliged to either.

You seem to forget you were offering a hypothetical excuse for rejecting the Summum monument. I was correcting the record. You can't claim the city thought the speech was harmful and then say "but it doesn't have to be harmful."

Remember it's government speech as you said, thus it's not about allowing any non-illegal/offensive material to be put in the park, the council chooses how the park is decorated. This is only about whether the government is promoting one religion over another, yet NSG seem to find it difficult to stick to this at times.

As I tried to make clear, I don't necessarily agree that that statues donated and maintained by third parties in a public park are government speech. Public parks are traditionally public forums. And third party speech is generally not regarded as government speech.

That said, if it is government speech, the government may escape violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but runs headlong into the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


How predominately?

Mormons settled the city of Pleasant Grove and make up a majority of its population. I don't know exact figures for its demographics.

And I wasn't even aware that there was any signficant difference between the 10 commandments and the Mormon 10 commandments, google found very little.

I don't know the specifics of the Mormon 10 Commandments, but it is fact stated in the record that they differ from the version established on the Pleasant Grove monument.

I do know the following:

“There are at least five distinctive versions of the Decalogue. In some cases the differences among them might seem trivial or semantic, but lurking behind the disparate accounts are deep theological disputes.” Steven Lubet, The Ten Commandments in Alabama, 15 Const. Comment. 471, 474 (1998). For example, there are separate general Protestant, Catholic, Luthern, and Jewish versions. The Jewish biblical text is comprised of thirteen sentences that are the basis for the Ten Commandments; in Christian texts there are seventeen sentences that are grouped together to form the Ten Commandments. Religions differ greatly in how they present the Ten Commandments and the choice of one version inherently prefers one religion over others.

For example, in Jewish versions of the Ten Commandments, the first commandment is: “I the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.” In the Protestant version, the first commandment is, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”; in the Catholic version it is, “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.”

The second commandment also varies among religions. For Jews, the second commandment states: “You shall have no other gods besides me. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image.” In contrast, the Catholic version of the second commandment is, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” The prohibition against graven images, included in the Jewish Second Commandment, is not found anywhere in the version used in the standard Catholic catechism. In this case, the Eagles' monument adopts the Lutheran version which places “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images” as part of the first commandment.

Differences in the content among the religions and their versions of the Ten Commandments often matter enormously. For instance, the differences in the wording of the Second Commandment among religions are extremely important to matters of religious faith and practice. The Catholic Church’s version, unlike those of most other religions, does not prohibit graven images. This reflects fundamental differences in religious practices and has been a source of great tension, and even violence, among religions since at least the Reformation. See John C. Holbert, The Ten Commandments 10 (2002) (“The reformers of the sixteenth century (especially the radical followers of Calvin) . . . use[d] the second commandment as part of their violent polemic against what they thought were the idolatries of the Roman Catholicism. . . . Statues of Mary, as well as those of many saints, were repugnant to many reformers, and the second commandment became a weapon against their use.”) Indeed, even in more recent times, the differing content of the second commandment among religions is a source of conflict and tension. See, e.g., Joseph Lewis, The Ten Commandments 26 (1946) (accusing Catholics of having “a mutilated set of Commandments”); Holbert, supra at 25 (describing conflicts resulting from varying versions of the second commandment).

Based on TCT's last few posts, it seems increasingly clear to me that the various municipalities where Summum have applied to install their aphorisms monument have deliberately discriminated against them by denying them a level of access that was granted to other groups.

It also seems, though there is less information about this, that no reason has been offered for why Summum's monuments are rejected, other than lists of generic rules that were clearly not applied to other groups. So I wonder, what do these towns have against Summum?

Finally, I wonder what other groups have had monument applications denied and for what reasons.

oh i do hope that the supreme court rules that the summum people get to place their monument.

that forces the various cities to either give equal access or pull the existing monuments.

which supports the argument i always make to those fools who decry things like taking prayer out of public schools. i remind them that if little johnny is a moslem then their delicate children will have to hear an islamic prayer. or jewish. or hindu. or *gasp* catholic.

such people live in a dream world where there is but one religion so its FINE to put up a monument dedicated to that point of view. they need to be shown that there are many many religions and that in the united states there can be no preference shown for or against any of them.

2. That said, the parameters the city claims it used are NOT NEUTRAL -- something you yourself admit later on.

No, I never admitted this.


"Equal access" is denied if some speech is being censored based on the content of the message or the identity of the speaker.


I do not consider it public speech.


3. That is not to say that allowing any speech means you must allow all speech. First, you can have time, space, and manner requirements which are content neutral. Second, there are well-established categories of speech that are not protected because it is harmful and/or worthless (defamation, obscenity, fighting words, etc.) The limits imposed by Pleasant Grove in this case don't relate to either of these permitted limitations.


Same as above.


WTF? You don't know that the town has a "Christian history!" In fact, what the hell is a "Christian history"?


Exactly, this is one of the reasons that I'm not sure whether the 10 commandments monument is suitable either.


Regardless, a rule that said the establishment or favortism toward a religion is OK if it is the "historically dominant" religion is NOT reconcilable with the First Amendment.


I never, ever said that favouritism towards a religion is ok, because I don't think that putting a statue up due to its relation to history or ties to its community means (for the billionth time) that you actually think one religion is better.


1. Are you implying that Summum is not a legitimate religion. 'Cuz the IRS and the courts (and the members of that church) disagree with you.


Nope, not at all.


2. Summum isn't requesting that city put up a statue to celebrate Summum, but rather to allow Summum to pay for a statue the same way the Eagles did.


Irrelevant.


3. Regardless, if your religion is real and sincere, you should have equal rights regarding free speech and freedom of religion as any other church. Part of the whole point of the First Amendment is that the majority doesn't simply rule regarding speech and religion.


Sure, but I don't consider the council putting a statue you donated in a park free speech, so this is redundant.


Then you are blowing smoke. I've explained why the absence of religious statues is (1) not extreme and (2) required by the First Amendment. You have yet to explain why either (1) or (2) is untrue.


It's extreme to demand that the council allow any statue by any religious organisation up, because it's very possible to reject a religious statue, based on its content, without actually saying the religion is inferior. You have yet to explain why 'less historical or community ties' = 'a worse religion'. It's also extreme to not allow any religious themed statue at all, that would result in hundreds of thousands of beautiful statues being pulled down.


Per my prior posts, how does prominently displaying in a public park the 10 Commandments not endorse the contents of the 10 Commandments or even the existence of the decalogue?

I don't think displaying a statue actually necessarily means you endorse the message on the statue anyway. I don't know the exact nature of the statue, and whether it is more decorative or more just about displaying the specific commandments, thus I'm not sure whether the 10 commandments is appropriate either.


Especially when you specifically say you won't allow any alternative to the 10 Commandments to be similarly displayed?


I never, ever specifically said anything like this. I'm not sure if you're actually arguing against me, or arguing against what you want to hear.


It has to do with several things. Mostly with disputing your imagined facts. The park has a wide variety of monuments including at least 2 religious monuments other than the one proposed by the Summum. Further, this is the first and only time the city has rejected a donated monument -- suggesting there is something about this particular monument the city doesn't like.


That still doesn't add anything useful to the argument. It doesn't show the least bit that they are simply rejecting it because they think that religion is inferior.


As I explained, time, place, and manner restrictions are perfectly permissible. So too are limitations on certain categories of extreme speech. Other than that, the government has no place discriminating between messages or speakers in a public forum.

I don't regard it as a public forum.


If this is not a public forum, then what the fuck are the Eagles doing erecting a monument to the 10 Commandments?


I don't know, but I don't know enough about the statue yet to make a judgement, but I'm leaning towards it not being suitable either. Let me make my position clear however, the main thing I am arguing is that allowing one religious themed statue, but not another religious themed statue, does not in itself indicate that the council believes that one religion is better than another, even if neither of the statues have illegal or offensive material. I also think that they shouldn't allow this Summum statue either.


You seem to forget you were offering a hypothetical excuse for rejecting the Summum monument. I was correcting the record. You can't claim the city thought the speech was harmful and then say "but it doesn't have to be harmful."


I never claimed the city thought the 'speech' was harmful.


Public parks are traditionally public forums.

In some ways, not in others. But tradition isn't a deciding factor.


And third party speech is generally not regarded as government speech.


The council was donated a statue, the council is not obliged to put up what it is donated, the council CHOSE to decorate this park this way, therefore it is an act of government, not an act of a third party, even though it was supported or pressured into it by a third party.


That said, if it is government speech, the government may escape violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but runs headlong into the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


So you say, that is being debated right now.


Mormons settled the city of Pleasant Grove and make up a majority of its population. I don't know exact figures for its demographics.


However, non-Mormon Christians may make up a significant minority.


I don't know the specifics of the Mormon 10 Commandments, but it is fact stated in the record that they differ from the version established on the Pleasant Grove monument.


When I looked up the Mormon version, the difference seemed very trivial, if any different at all. I don't think it's different enough to make any Mormon care.


-snip-

Ok, but this doesn't say much about the Mormon ten commandments.

When I looked up the Mormon version, the difference seemed very trivial, if any different at all. I don't think it's different enough to make any Mormon care.

Ok, but this doesn't say much about the Mormon ten commandments.

I specifically admitted not knowing much about the Mormon 10 Commandments, but I think it is more than sufficient to show: (1) there are many different versions of the 10 Commandments, (2) seemingly "trivial" differences among versions of the 10 Commandments often reflect deep religious distinctions, and (3) the version of 10 Commandments displayed in Pleasant Grove is NOT the version best tied to either the history of the city or a majority of its inhabitants.

That said, here is some info on the Mormon 10 Commandments:

The following review of the Ten Commandments includes brief explanations of how they continue to apply in our lives today:

1. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). We should do “all things with an eye single to the glory of God” (D&C 82:19). We should love and serve the Lord with all our heart, might, mind, and strength (see Deuteronomy 6:5; D&C 59:5).

2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” (Exodus 20:4). In this commandment, the Lord condemns the worship of idols. Idolatry may take many forms. Some people do not bow before graven images or statues but instead replace the living God with other idols, such as money, material possessions, ideas, or prestige. In their lives, “their treasure is their god”—a god that “shall perish with them” (2 Nephi 9:30).

3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exodus 20:7).

4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8).

5. “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12). This commandment remains binding throughout our lives and can be understood in several ways: We should honor our fathers and our mothers who are our ancestors; we should be grateful to the father and mother who provided our earthly bodies; we should honor those who raised us in the knowledge of the truth. Above all, we should honor our Heavenly Parents. The way we honor all these fathers and mothers is by keeping the commandments.

6. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

7. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). In a latter-day revelation, the Lord condemned not only adultery, but “anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Fornication, homosexuality, and other sexual sins are violations of the seventh commandment.

8. “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15). Stealing is a form of dishonesty.

9. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Bearing false witness is another form of dishonesty.

10. “Thou shalt not covet” (Exodus 20:17). Coveting, or envying something that belongs to another, is damaging to the soul. It can consume our thoughts and plague us with constant unhappiness and dissatisfaction. It often leads to other sins and to financial indebtedness.

Although most of the Ten Commandments list things we should not do, they also represent things we should do. The Savior summarized the Ten Commandments in two principles—love for the Lord and love for our fellow men:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

“This is the first and great commandment.

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39).

See also Agency; Chastity; Honesty; Obedience; Profanity; Reverence; Sabbath; War; Worship

—See True to the Faith (2004), 176–78



http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=54a0f73c28d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/c/43

Any thoughts, questions, outraged comments?Just this.

http://backdoorlife.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/1246_mainpopecorerockin.jpg

I do not consider it public speech.

Goody for you. Why not? If it isn't public speech, what is it? Why exactly does that make a difference? If it isn't public speech, why have some third parties been allowed to put up statutes?

I never, ever said that favouritism towards a religion is ok, because I don't think that putting a statue up due to its relation to history or ties to its community means (for the billionth time) that you actually think one religion is better.

It's extreme to demand that the council allow any statue by any religious organisation up, because it's very possible to reject a religious statue, based on its content, without actually saying the religion is inferior. You have yet to explain why 'less historical or community ties' = 'a worse religion'. It's also extreme to not allow any religious themed statue at all, that would result in hundreds of thousands of beautiful statues being pulled down.

I don't think displaying a statue actually necessarily means you endorse the message on the statue anyway. I don't know the exact nature of the statue, and whether it is more decorative or more just about displaying the specific commandments, thus I'm not sure whether the 10 commandments is appropriate either.

endorse (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/endorse?view=uk): verb 1 declare one’s public approval of

favor (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/favour?view=uk): noun 1 approval or liking. 2 an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual. 3 overgenerous preferential treatment

verb 1 regard or treat with favour. 2 work to the advantage of. 3 (favour with) give (something desired) to.

Erecting a public monument declaring the "words of the Lord" endorse a religious message and, in fact, a specific religion or set of religions.

Erecting a public monument declaring the "words of the Lord" according to one sect but not another is to favor the former.


Especially when you specifically say you won't allow any alternative to the 10 Commandments to be similarly displayed?
I never, ever specifically said anything like this. I'm not sure if you're actually arguing against me, or arguing against what you want to hear.

The "you" in that sentence meant "the city," not Hydesland.

I'll repeat my whole question with that change:

Per my prior posts, how does a city prominently displaying in a public park the 10 Commandments not endorse the contents of the 10 Commandments or even the existence of the decalogue? Especially when the city specifically says it won't allow any alternative to the 10 Commandments to be similarly displayed?


In some ways, not in others. But tradition isn't a deciding factor.

Tradition actually usually is a deciding factor in whether something is a public forum, but we'll let that go. In your mind, what is the deciding factor in what is a public forum? Why isn't the public park in Pleasant Grove a public forum?

So you say, that is being debated right now.

Yes, by us. Here. Your failure to make an argument addressing this point is noted.

Right, and an appropriate guideline would be, no statues that are meaningless to the vast majority of the citizens and that don't represent anything about the culture or history of the place or about a significant event or person etc..., right?

Why?

That's just discrimination. You're going to allow 'christian' monuments, that are meaningless to me, just because a lot of people are Christians?

But aren't other monuments potentially as fraught with controversy as a religious monument? Say the "Sons of Confederate Veterans" managed to get a memorial to Confederate soldiers placed at Kennessaw, wouldn't that anger people that saw the Confederacy as a bunch of slave-owning bigots? Shouldn't that be prohibited, too?

Seems fair.