The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: Chris_ on February 27, 2009, 07:50:16 AM
-
Summum Decision to Provide ‘Bookend’ to Ten Commandments’ Challenges, Attorney Hopes
(CNSNews.com) - Can a city decide which permanent, unattended monuments, it must install on city property?
On Wednesday, without dissent, members of the U.S. Supreme Court said “Yes."
In a 9-0 ruling, the court unanimously rejected the argument of a little-known Salt Lake City-based religious sect called Summum that the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, should be forced to place a monument to the group’s “Seven Aphorisms†alongside a 50-year-old monument to the Ten Commandments already in a city park.
*snip*
The American Humanist Association announced the decision gives atheists the ammunition they need to pursue the total removal of Ten Commandments monuments on public property all over America.
*snip*
Justice Antonin Scalia, meawnhile, seemed to agree. Writing separately in a concurring opinion to the Summum decision, Scalia made it clear that the high court isn’t likely to entertain other arguments on the issue.
MORE (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44211)
9-0.
I've heard many arguments about the public display of the 10 Commandments because of their religious origin, but never have I heard an argument about their content.