RSS
Where the Ten Commandments belong
Who has the right to put religious monuments on public land?
L

ife would be simpler if the Supreme Court would ban all religious texts from government property, said the Los Angeles Times in an editorial. But the court has already ruled that it's okay to commemorate the Ten Commandments' "influence in history" and "secular moral message." Now a religious group called Summum says its Seven Aphorisms are as deserving as the commandments of a spot in a Utah park. "Our message to the court: Thou shalt not turn public parks into churches."

There are plenty of churches and synagogues where the commandments can be displayed, said The New York Times in an editorial. So the court should tell the town of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, to remove a Ten Commandments memorial from its Pioneer Park, or stop denying Summum the right to put it's own monument there. Public land "must be open to all religions on an equal basis—or open to none at all."

Not exactly, said The Washington Post in an editorial. If someone wanted to erect the Ten Commandments monument today it would be okay to stop them, but the display in Pioneer Park has been there for nearly four decades. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution doesn't require "that all religiously tinged monuments" on public land be torn down. So "the mere existence of such monuments" shouldn't "require governments to erect new ones."

EDITORS' PICKS

THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER

Subscribe to the Week