- Joined
- Apr 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,440
- Reaction score
- 2,459
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Whether allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed as it was in this case violates the Establishment Clause or some other part of the First Amendment does not depend on what you personally think. And the Supreme Court does not seem to agree with your assertion that it's permissible only if "any other religion" also gets to put its monument up on the same grounds.
You might want to look at Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, a 2009 Supreme Court decision. Members of the Summum religion demanded that the city let it place a monument inscribed with the "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" in a city park where other donated monuments had been erected. The Court held that although the area was a "traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory acts, the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to which forum analysis applies."
The placement of a permanent monument in a public park was not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause, the Court explained, because it was a form of government speech. As long as the city's acceptance of a monument could not be seen as an endorsement of religion, it was free to accept or reject private monuments.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that personal opinions were not allowed on forums.