Revered freedoms of speech, religion at cross purposes
Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board
More 'Opinion'
- Wine tourism doesn't stop at the winery
- Duck muck: Oregon football officials sending mixed messages
- Keep eye on business while March Madness prevails
- Overdose immunity bill could cost lives
- Special session? Hasn't Legislature done enough damage?
- State employee raises are on taxpayers' dime
- Court can send clear message on public access to public records
Little wonder that U.S. Supreme Court justices are wary about taking up another case in which two First Amendment guarantees -- free speech and freedom of religion -- are in conflict.
The court heard arguments last week in a case involving a small religious group's effort to place a monument in a Utah public park. On one hand, the justices are leery of the Summums' claim that once a government accepts any donations for display in a public park, it must accept them all.
The group's claim is based on the decision of officials in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, who denied the group's request to erect a monument similar to a Ten Commandments display that has stood in the city's Pioneer Park since 1971.
The Salt Lake City-based group wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the park.
And that presents a dilemma for the high court. If justices agree with the Summums, are they greasing the proverbial slippery slope?
A federal appeals court has upheld the religious group's claim that Pleasant Grove can't allow some private donations in its public park and reject others. Opponents of that view are concerned that a ruling backing the Summums would allow almost anyone to erect a monument in a public park, including people with hateful points of view.
Well, yeah. You can't have it both ways. If it's a religious monument, and the Ten Commandments certainly qualifies, then you have a hard time ruling out something that has equally religious significance to someone else just because you may not agree with it.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has previously held that the Ten Commandments also have historical significance.
We're reminded of a similar case in which a federal appeals court ruled that an 8-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve of California that was originally intended as a war memorial is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The cross was constructed in 1934 by a group of World War I veterans and Congress has declared the site a war memorial; it later began to attract Christian worshippers.
That case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a retired National Park Service employee who objected to the religious symbolism of the steel pipe structure.
A federal judge in Riverside, Calif., sided with the ACLU in 2002, ruling that the "primary effect of the presence of the cross" was to "advance religion." The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in 2004.
In this more recent case, the high court finds itself in a tenuous situation. And, as always, the defining principle is whether the religious symbols are in public facilities.
The Utah case appears to raise questions of government favoring one religion over another, which is prohibited by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. But some religious and civic groups want the justices to order the appeals court to review the case by looking at the religious freedoms issue.
That creates quite a conflict within the First Amendment. We hope the high court's ruling provides enough latitude so that the walls and halls of public facilities aren't turned into sterile tributes to suppressed free speech rights.
It's a fine line, but one the high court must walk to come up with definitive guidelines for protection of fundamental basic rights so important that the Founding Fathers put them in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins, Bill Lee and Karen Troianello.
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?

RSS
E-mail
Print
Comments