[excon]

Hello:

There's a town in Utah that let the Eagles put up the Ten Commandments in a public park. Some other religion wanted to put up its equivalent of the Ten Commandments. The town told them no.

The Tenth Circuit disagreed with the town. The Supreme Court is about to rule on the case.

How would you rule? Why? You Christians know that you're going to get an argument from me, doncha?

Youda thought this would be settled by now, wouldn't you? Why isn't it?

excon

[tomder55]

Should be an interesting case. An appelate court ruled a while ago in Anderson v. Salt Lake City that the Ten Commandments are “primarily secular”. That left an opening for the Summum cult to argue that their 1st amendment free speech rights ;not the " establishment clause" had been violated .

A three-panel judge agreed with the Summum: The city had violated their free speech rights.But Pleasant Grove has already removed the 10 commandments rather than grant the Summum a place for their "commandments "(their Aphorisms) .

What SCOTUS will decide is if the Summum putting a religious monument on public land constitutes free speech .

I know you are opposed to government putting religious symbols on public land. Are you simularily opposed to private groups displaying their religious beliefs on public land under the guise of "free speech " ?

[excon]

I know you are opposed to government putting religious symbols on public land. Are you simularily opposed to private groups displaying their religious beliefs on public land under the guise of "free speech " ?

Hello tom:

Private groups may display their message on THEIR property. When they use PUBLIC property, the message is no longer from a private group. It's a message from the government.

Furthermore, "religions", or other "groups" of people don't have free speech rights. Only INDIVIDUALS have free speech rights.

It's the establishment clause. Let's hope the Supremes get it right.

For those of you less wonky than either tom or myself, the "establishment clause", is directly from the First Amendment wherein it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When a government allows ONE religion access to the public square, but not others, the GOVERNMENT is endorsing or "establishing" a religion. To me, it's clear that they can't do that.

excon

[tomder55]

1st I was mistaken in stating that the 10 commandment monument was removed .

Regardless of what you think the case should be decided on the fact is that the case will be decided on the other 1st amendment clause... "free speech". The appeals court ruled that the monument was a form of private speech by the 'Eagles' being communicated in a public forum .

What you are arguing would restrict anyone from making religious speech of any kind on public land.

[excon]

What you are arguing would restrict anyone from making religious speech of any kind on public land.

Hello again, tom:

No, no, no. Please read what I say again.

I don't want to restrict free speech in the public square... That's what the town is doing when it won't let the OTHER religion put up its monument.

I want EVERYBODY to have access to the public square - just like the Constitution says. And, they can say what they want, including religious stuff.

I do assert again, however, that GROUPS don't have free speech rights... INDIVIDUALS do. Can people stand near each other espousing the same stuff the guy right next to him is?? Sure.

But it ISN'T a group, in the sense that the group has standing in court to assert a civil right. The group called the Eagles, who donated the monument, doesn't HAVE free speech rights.

excon

[KISS]

There was an issue where the 10 commandments was posted in a court house. It had to be removed.

[tomder55]

That is what is to be decided in this case . The appeals court ruled that the monument was a form of private speech by the Eagles being communicated in a public forum and that the Summum free speech rights were violated when their monument was not allowed. The court decided that groups of individuals were indeed entitled to the same free speech rights as individuals.

Interesting to note in the dissent of the 10th circuit court ruling ,Judge Michael McConnell warned :Every park in the country that has accepted a VFW memorial is now a public forum for the erection of permanent fixed monuments; they must either remove the war memorials or brace themselves for an influx of clutter.
A city that accepted the donation of a statue honoring a local hero could be forced under the panel's rulings, to allow a local religious society to erect a Ten Commandments monument – or for that matter, a cross, a nativity scene, a statue of Zeus, or a Confederate flag.

Already this case as decided will open up a can of worms . Had the Summum argued that the separation clause had been violated and that all they were asking for is a removal of the 10 commandment monument then we would've been rehashing old debates . But because they argued on the grounds of free speech they have opened another pandora's box.

That hateful schmuck Fred Phelps wants to erect a plaque of some kind in a park in Casper Wy. Where a 10 commandment monument is erected to make an anti-gay slur against Matthew Shepard... a gay man who was tied to a fence, beaten, and then left to die .Phelps is using the 10th Circus decision as justification.

[speechlesstx]

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the “wall of separation” that was constitutionalized in Everson.

Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities, have with embarrassing candor conceded that the “wall of separation” is merely a “blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier,” which “is not wholly accurate” and can only be “dimly perceived.”...

But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.... The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. -Rehnquist in WALLACE V. JAFFREE

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. -Thomas Jefferson

I say we adhere to the framer's original intent of the establishment clause, constitutional powers of the federal government and the position intended for the judicial branch.

[excon]

Hello Steve:

This isn't a separation issue. It's either a free speech issue where the other church has the same rights as the Eagles. Or it's an establishment issue where the town can't display ANY religious stuff.

No matter HOW you size it up, the town is going down.

excon

PS> The Tenth Circuit Court got it wrong. And, you tom, pointed out exactly WHY. It really ISN'T a free speech issue. So, how come an exconvict knows more law than the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals?? Cause most of 'em were appointed by the dufus in chief.

[tomder55]

6 by GW Bush
6 by Reagan
4 by Clinton
2 by Carter
2 by Nixon
1 by LBJ
1 by GHWBush

Justice McConnell who's dissent I quoted was appointed by President Bush .

[speechlesstx]

Hello Steve:

This isn't a separation issue. It's either a free speech issue where the other church has the same rights as the Eagles. Or it's an establishment issue where the town can't display ANY religious stuff.

Yeah, I read about the case. My point is the intent of the founders seems to be that this is a state issue. In this case the town's point is the 10 commandments display is relevant to the history of the area. "This park (Pioneer Park) is dedicated to the history of the people, the founding of the city and significant citizens who have lived and contributed to the community," were the mayor's words. Somehow I don't see how the "Seven Aphorisms" of a religion founded by a guy who said it was revealed to him by hairless blue aliens fits the bill. We'll know the outcome soon enough.