Once again: Freedom of religion means all religions

June 30, 2007

Guest Post by Morbo

Jay Sekulow is an attorney who works for TV preacher Pat Robertson. He is generally regarded as one of the smarter Religious Right lawyers out there and has successfully argued cases before the Supreme Court.

It’s too bad he doesn’t understand the principles of free speech and freedom of religion.

In a recent fund-raising appeal, Sekulow went ballistic because a federal appeals court has ruled that a community in Utah that has been displaying the Ten Commandments in a public park must display other religious codes as well.

A religious group called Summum is happy to see the Commandments displayed in the park in Pleasant Grove. They’d just like to add their “Seven Aphorisms” as well.

Sekulow is not pleased. This, he says, is “tyranny.” Sekulow adds:

“The result if they win? Any government that displays a Ten Commandments monument or a patriotic memorial will be compelled to display a monument in opposition to the Ten Commandments or an anti-American monument…. A ruling in Summum’s favor would turn government properties into cluttered junkyards of contributed monuments.”

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, not generally considered a liberal court, has ruled in Summum’s favor twice recently — once in the Pleasant Grove case and in an earlier ruling from the city of Duchesne. (In two earlier cases, officials in Salt Lake City and Ogden removed Ten Commandments monuments rather than erect the Seven Aphorisms alongside them.)

The Summum folks aren’t doing this to be contrary. Their website states, “It is important to point out that Summum is not interested in the removal of the Ten Commandments from government property. Rather, Summum wishes to erect its own monument next to the Ten Commandments. Summum wishes to exercise its right to freedom of speech.”

One would think Sekulow would be pleased. After all, isn’t more religion in the public square what he’s always wanted?

I suspect Sekulow only wants a certain type of religion (his) in the public square.

But that’s not the way it works in America. We don’t play favorites among faiths. A benefit extended to one must be given to all.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided had the Ten Commandments been displayed where they have always belonged – in houses of worship. But that was not good enough for Sekulow, Robertson and their troupe of theocrats. The Commandments had to be down at city hall, in front of the courthouse and pasted on the walls of every government facility on the taxpayer’s dime. Summum and other faiths are demanding the same right of access. No surprise there.

By the way, the Seven Aphorisms can be read here. Elsewhere on the site, you can read how Summum practitioners will, for a fee, mummify you or your beloved pet after death.

Cool.

So what is the correct lawyerly way to phrase “Nyah, nyah! Told ya so”?

  • I just took a quick look at Summum’s site from Morbo’s link. Kind of far out, but no sillier than some of the stuff that “traditional” Christians come up with.

    I think that there is no question that Summum is going to prevail in this fight. Even our present right-wing Supremes would be on the correct side of this one, possibly even 9-0. It will be a great lesson for those who want to want to tear down that church-state wall.

    WHOSE church?

  • What part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion don’t they understand? I guess the part about congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion.

    And these are the same people who want to make English the official language of the United States? Perhaps they should actually learn the language, then we can talk about the theocracy they want to install as our system of government.

  • Any government that displays a Ten Commandments monument or a patriotic memorial will be compelled to display a monument in opposition to the Ten Commandments or an anti-American monument…

    [e.m.]

    Shorter Suckulow: You’re either with us or against us!

    I see nothing in the 7 Aphorisms that are “against” the 10 Commandments and many of the ideas should be familiar to people who’ve read their C.S. Lewis. Or have even a weak grasp of physics.

    A ruling in Summum’s favor would turn government properties into cluttered junkyards of contributed monuments.

    Jay needs to learn when to shut up. “Expression of different viewpoints might be untidy,” has got to be the lamest anti-1st Am argument, EvA.

    Oh well. Let’s just savour the irony of the situation. Because the Talevan demanded still more opportunities to express their religious beliefs (ie force them down people’s throats), it has become impossibe for a reasonable court or legislature to say other people shouldn’t have the same rights.

    Thanks guys!

  • The mark of this guy’s insanity is how seamlessly he ties religious monuments to patriotic ones. Maybe he thinks Iwo Jima happened in the Old Testament and God gave the Declaration of Independence to Moses.

  • A ruling in Summum’s favor would turn government properties into cluttered junkyards of contributed monuments.
    I like this. A court ruling in favor of the Summum would give us a form of MAD, mutually assured destruction, which might signal the end of the religious rights efforts to bring their religion to the public square.

  • Finally! Now maybe Robertson, Dobson and others will get a taste of their own medicine…er, I mean religion.

    Of course they believe theirs is the only true religion and so you are right. When Robertson speaks of religious freedom he most definitely means His.
    Notice how the attorney tried to tie patriotic monuments into the argument as if anti-American monuments would be side by side with WWII memorials?
    Other religion’s principles are equated as being anti-American. By that logic I guess it means religious tolerance is anti-American Hypocrites and bigots are anti-American.

  • A ruling in Summum’s favor would turn government properties into cluttered junkyards of contributed monuments.”

    Yeah? And whose fault would that be? Pieces of junk have a propensity to accumulate; whenever you don’t put something away in its proper place, before you know it, that thing is joined by another, also out of place. Just ask any housewife…

  • suck-u-low is just another whinny, bitch winger. i’d love to do a cher on by slapping him across his face and tell him to snap out of it. did you like the part where he equated having a religion other than christianity as anti-american? he knew what he was doing by putting the ten commandments in the same sentence with patriotic monuments only to end it with anti-american. he’s definitely not one of the ass clowns we ususally see from the american taliban. he’s such a douch. someone needs to tell him that his glasses are so out of style that sally jesse rafael stopped wearing the in the late 80’s. is it me or does he always look either constipated or needs to shoot a load. help me out. which one is it?

  • I’ll tell you a little about the history on this state and this entire nation. this nation was founded by those who desired religious freedom. this state was founded by a people with a belief in Christianity. whatever monument they’ve put up is historical and a part of the culture here in Utah. any monument we put up now following this common belief of the founders is not to be taken offensively by others. nor is it to be challenged by others!
    Brigham Young was the leader of the so-called “Mormons”. they settled here in Utah. which, by the way, was not even a part of the United States at the time they settled here. however, Brigham Young was a religious leader. does this mean that we must erect an anti-Brigham Young statue to put next to his statue in SLC? does this mean that we must erect a statue of the Prophet Muhammed next to his simply because a minority thinks that their religion should have the same right as ours?
    what is the difference between the two subjects of a monument of the ten commandments and the statue of Brigham Young? there is none. some may say that we leave the statue of Brigham young because he founded this state. but religion didn’t. they’d be correct. religion founded this nation! This nation and the constitution which guarantees our freedoms and liberties were both founded upon ideals of Christian men. Men who claimed that these ideals should be taught in public schools. we have the right to display any Christian monument we wish. Christianity founded this nation and the freedoms that many in this nation take for granted and are working to eliminate by attacking our constitution by attacking the values upon which this nation was founded.

  • Parker, your comment is a classic example of the distortion members of the religious right seek to perpetrate upon the public. The monument that went up was done so by those who took advantage of a situation to get their point of view publicized. But now they cry because they are being asked to be fair to other points of view.

    In The Federalist, one of this country’s founding fathers, James Madison, writes:

    “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

    The claim that the United States was founded on the Ten Commandments and Christianity is without merit. No reference to the Ten Commandments or the God of Christianity may be found in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. An examination of history shows that ideals and principles of Deism and Freemasonry shaped the beginnings of our country more than anything else.

    The United States government publically declared that our country was not founded on the Christian religion. In 1796, the Treaty of Tripoli was passed and Article 11 of the treaty states:

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; …”

    The treaty was approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and was ratified by the US Senate.

    But this is really beside the point. The issue here is free speech and it appears that some seek censorship and discrimination. They’ve adopted the attitude of “FREE SPEECH FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE,” contrary to the concern expressed by Madison. This is the reason our founding fathers left England and this is what they hoped to avoid in establishing this great country of ours.

    • Comments are closed.