![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a Utah city can refuse to put a religious group's monument in a public park near a similar Ten Commandments display.
The justices unanimously sided with the city of Pleasant Grove, which had said a ruling for the religious group would mean public parks across the country would have to allow privately donated monuments that express different views from those already on display.
i.e.: the Constitutional requirement for separation of church and state requires that if they allow public property to be used to promote one religion, they must offer the same opportunity to all religions. the horror.
The Summun[sic] religious group, founded in Salt Lake City in 1975, sought in 2003 to erect a monument to the tenets of its faith, called the "Seven Aphorisms," in a park where there are other monuments, including a Ten Commandments display.
for reference, these are the The Seven Aphorisms of Summum:
2. As above, so below; as below, so above.
3. Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.
4. Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.
5. Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.
6. Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.
7. Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels.</cite>
you will note they are no more offensive than the ten commandments.
Pleasant Grove rejected the request, citing its requirement that park displays be related to its history or be donated by groups with longtime community ties, like the Fraternal Order of Eagles that gave the Ten Commandments monument in 1971.
the document which would be "related to its history" would be the golden plates, and using historical bias as grounds for unconstitutional discrimination is pretty lame, especially against a religion that didn't exist until 1974.
The religious group sued and argued that it violated the constitutional right to free speech for the city to allow one message on public property while excluding another message. A U.S. appeals court agreed.
i.e.: they are literate and can read the Constitution.
Attorneys for the city argued that the appeals court's ruling would require cities and states to remove long-standing monuments or result in public parks nationwide becoming cluttered junkyards of monuments.
gee, maybe you pinheads should have thought of that before violating the separation of church and state in the first place. your stupidity is not an excuse.
The Supreme Court agreed in overturning the appeal court's ruling.
In the court's opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said the placement of a permanent monument in a public park was not subject to scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution's free-speech clause.
ah yes, the "judgment" of a w appointee. surely a moral paragon. not. here is what the Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
perhaps sam should bother reading it. there is no exception to that amendment, period. "because obeying the constitution after historical violation would be inconvenient" is an invalid justification on its face and the entire supreme court is now guilty of failing to uphold the Constitution. which is grounds for summary impeachment.
"It is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression," he wrote.
If governments must maintain viewpoint neutrality in selecting donated monuments, they must prepare for cluttered parks or face pressure to remove long-standing and cherished monuments, Alito said.
again: 1. they should have thought of that before they violated the separation in the first place, and 2. historical violation does not justify or excuse continued violation. have these morons never read the Constitution, or are they so stupid they can't understand what it says, or both?
The U.S. Justice Department supported the city, which has about 31,000 residents, most of whom are Mormons. Department lawyers said a ruling for the religious group could force it to allow private displays at national parks and historic sites.
wow, the extraordinary redition endorsing doj also endorses this violation of the Constitution. what a shocker. and here's a clue, pinheads: they weren't asking for a "private" display, they were asking for the same *PUBLIC* display already given to the ten commandments.
The Supreme Court last addressed the issue of displays of religious symbols on public property in 2005 when it allowed a Ten Commandments monument on a state Capitol grounds that also has numerous other monuments and statues.
yes, which while endorsing the violation of church and state, did so confirming the need to be non-discriminatory in doing so. this ruling doesn't even have that benefit and is just Unconstitutional.
