Revered freedoms of speech, religion at cross purposes

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.

• Jobs
  www.yakjobs.com
• Homes
  www.yakhomes.com
• 
  
• Autos
  www.yakwheels.com

• All Special Pubs Channels YakJobs.com YakWheels.com YakHomes.com Playdate Yakima Bride Yakima Wheels (Print) Home Buyer's Guide Baby Brag Book Graduates 2009 Summer in the Valley
• Advertisement