Saturday, March 14, 2009

Yet More Stuff About Religious Monuments on Publiclicly-owned Property

Here we go again. Seems that the US Supreme Court has ruled that a public park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah doesn't have to put up a monument bearing the "commandments" of "Summum." a small religious sect eager to spread their religious beliefs by means of a monument placed in a tax-funded, public place. In writing the opinion for the court, Judge Alito pointed out that placing such a monument in the park is tantamount to "government speech." That, of course, cannot be allowed.

Now you might think that I would be sending the court a nice note about FINALLY doing something sensible about religion. After all of the Bush appointments and years of confounding church and state, it seems they finally got it right eh...? Well, don't forget the words of former "right winger" and chief justice Rehnquist. To quote: "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.” As you might imagine, after operating under this premise for the last decade plus, this recent judgement might seem like a breath of common sense.

But, not so fast there, partner! For you see, in that same park, the court saw nothing wrong with a Ten Commandments monument! It was left perfectly intact. Now, seems to me that turn about is fair play. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc.; etc.; etc.;and so on.

The only really fair course is to call all such monument secular and give everybody a "piece of the monument pie," or nix them all. You can't have it both ways. If a monument is government speech for the poor Summumumians, it's no less so for the Christians or Jews. Come on now! Lets play fair!

No comments:

Post a Comment