I know this because the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday about a Utah town that refused to allow one sort of religious monument on city property while staunchly defending another.
From the NYT editorial 11/12/08:
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, has a city park, known as Pioneer Park, that includes various unattended displays. These include historical artifacts from the town, a Sept. 11 memorial, and a Ten Commandments monument that was given to the city by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a national civic group.
A religious organization called Summum, which was founded in 1975 and is based in Salt Lake City, applied to install its own monument in the park. The monument it proposed would include the group’s Seven Principles of Creation (also called the Seven Aphorisms), which it believes were inscribed on tablets handed down from God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
So, here we are again ... obstinate local governments deciding that neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment apply to them. So, now, they're in a fight over a religious monument planted in a city park in the mid-1950s by a civic group given money to promote a movie.
Okay —quick disclaimer, here. One of the more enticing stories I've read (or heard or been told) over the years is that, in advance of the movie, "The Ten Commandments," Cecil B. DeMille helped finance the Fraternal Order of Eagles' efforts to place monuments featuring the Ten Commandments in as many public spaces as possible. This may be simply an urban myth but it rings true and if true, it could be said that the battles the Culture Warriors have fought on this topic are less about Christian values and more about capitalistic values.
... but, I digress.
The SCOTUSblog has a wonderful analysis of the arguments set forth Tuesday. The blog's author called it the "Tyranny of Lables," which is apt. However, the legal arguments do little to disguise the fact that the leaders in this community have little or no respect for or understanding of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
It would be so easy for most local governments to have their cake and eat it, too because no interpretation of the Establishment Clause I've ever read forbids religious displays on government property. The Establishment Clause simply says the government may not promote one religion over another — it may not allow one sort of religious display in the public's space while forbidding another. The primary reason most dissenters object to Christian iconography on government property is because they are not allowed to display their own religious iconography.
Local governments could have Nativity scenes, post the Ten Commandments* and, really, do whatever their pinched little hearts desired if they also allowed other religious displays in the public's space. All they'd have to do is pass a resolution declaring public spaces open for religious displays on High Holy Days (whatever that religion's High Holy Day happens to be). Let the local Christian churches build their Nativity scenes or whatever then just sit back.
In most communities, there would few takers because, in most communities in this country, the only religion practiced is the various forms of Christianity. It seems like a simple solution, to me — maybe too simple — and I'm not sure why more local governments don't try that.
Are they so unsure in their faith that they absolutely cannot allow competition from the occasional Wiccan or Buddhist shrine? I dunno ...
Now, this would not solve the problems we have at our schools ... public prayer, proselytizing at required student events, etc ... but few SCOTUS rulings speak to all the issues and the Prayer in School crisis bids fair to continue the culture wars for a bit longer.
(*I've always wondered why we chose to fight over the Ten Commandments. That's so Old Testament. Aren't Christians supposed to pay more attention to the New Testament? If so, we ought to be posting Christ's version of the Jewish law: The Beatitudes.)
No comments:
Post a Comment