Religious Diversity News
Wednesday November 12, 2008
Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case about the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. Pleasant Grove City, Utah, allows a monument to the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a city park, but denied the request of another religious group, called Summum, to erect a similar monument. The Alternative Religion section of About.com provides the background.
A New York Times editorial argues that Pleasant Grove City violated the First Amendment's "establishment" clause by favoring one religion over another. "Public property like Pioneer Park must be open to all religions on an equal basis — or open to none at all," the editorial says.
Comments
I don’t see a reason for something like the ten commandments to be in a public park. They should just take it away and not allow any religious objects to be displayed there unless they have a true meaning to the park or historic event at that location. I don’t think the rejection of the Summum’s monument is itself proof of violation of the 1st amendment. There could have been other reasons for the rejection, but if there have been other cases where “non-traditional” religions have been rejected, then that would be a good indicator.
Also, Summum seems to be a philosophy more than a religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum) and is only about 30 years old. I’d likely have rejected their monument as well, but again, I wold have also denied the ten commandments. I see in the linked page though that the Summum’s got their monument approved. Whatever.