|
| MAIN SITE |
 |
 COMPARATIVE RELIGION |
| INTERFAITH DIALOGUE FORUM |
| ABOUT |
|
| WORLD RELIGIONS |
|
| BUDDHISM |
| CHRISTIANITY |
| CONFUCIANISM |
| HINDUISM |
| ISLAM |
| JUDAISM |
| SHINTO |
| SIKHISM |
| TAOISM |
| ZOROASTRIANISM |
|
| MAIN SECTIONS |
|
| WORLD RELIGIONS |
ALTERNATIVE SPIRITUALITY |
| ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY |
| GENERAL ARTICLES |
|
| SPECIAL FEATURE: |
|
| APOCRYPHA |
|
|
COMMUNITY FORUMS |
|
| BELIEF & SPIRITUALITY |
| ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS |
| EASTERN THOUGHT |
| ALTERNATIVE SPIRITUALITY |
| ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY |
| COMPARATIVE STUDIES |
|
|
|
Interfaith: Home / Blog article: Religious Monument To Be Decided By Supreme Court
April 1, 2008Religious Monument To Be Decided By Supreme Court
by Rohan Parker
A review was announced by the Supreme Court on Monday, regarding the case of a religious organization which has requested the tenets of their religion be placed, in the form of a monument, in a Utah municipal park. The group which has been established for nearly 33 years, have requested that their monument be placed near a similar monument which is inscribed with the Ten Commandments.
The case that has been put before the Justices is Pleasant Grove City v. Summun. The Denver 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the city should acquiesce to the request and put up the monument with the Seven Aphorisms on it.
The lawyers for the City have presented the case to the Supreme Court because the believe that if not overruled, there could be serious ramifications for city councils with regards to public land and how they may use or control it.
The chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow, is the lawyer presenting the case to Supreme Court and he has publicly stated that the decision facing the Justice’s is quite simply between upholding precedent in the difference between government and private speech or allowing for a warped interpretation of the Constitution.
The lawyer for Summum, which is located in Salt Lake City, has as yet been unreachable for comment.
The inclusion of the Seven Aphorisms, which underly the principles of Creation, is based on the doctrine of the church, which was established in 1975, that state that it was on Moses’ first trip to Mount Sinai that he was given the aphorisms, and then on the second that he received the Ten Commandments.
In a previous statement, Summum has said that by denying the building of the monument with the aphorisms, the city is violating the First Amendment.
The last ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue was in 2005 and at that time, the decision was handed down that whilst it is acceptable and constitutional to display religious monuments, they must be included in an historical display with other documents or images so as to not appear highly religious.
The park in which the current Ten Commandments monument resides and where the Seven Aphorisms was intended to go, is Pioneer Park. The park also houses other religious and significant statuary such as an item from the Mormon Temple, in Nauvoo Ill., a memorial erected by a Boy Scout project to 9/11, and the Ten Commandments monument, which was donated in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles.
Activists who have long been critical of the Ten Commandments monuments being placed in public locations have weighed in on this new debate. The American Humanist Association president, Mel Lipman, has stated that this is the direct consequence for those groups interested in, and promoting of, the inclusion of Ten Commandment monuments, for they now have to abide by other religions having the same opportunity to include their doctrine in the form of statuary.
Discuss this in the Interfaith forums
Story link: Religious Monument To Be Decided By Supreme Court
Add to Bookmarks:
Related stories:
Leave a Reply
Previous: « Anglicans Divided In Canada Over Same-Sex Unions
Next: Clinton’s Pastor Weighs In On Wright Debate »
Visited 533 times, 1 so far today