Where does God belong and who gets to decide? That sums up the debate underlying two new rulings by the United States Supreme Court and it seems to be a split decision.
In one case, the court ruled unanimously that authorities in Pleasant Grove, Utah, could maintain a Ten Commandments monument in Pioneer Park while rejecting a monument to the “7 Aphorisms” offered by a religious group called Summum. Typically, the claim is that demonstrating preference for one religious tradition over others violates the Constitution’s “establishment clause”. But in this case, the group which made the offer sued on the basis that the city council’s rejection of their offer constituted an infringement on free speech.
The leaders of Summum failed to recognize that governments make decisions about what to include and what to exclude from public parks all the time. But the fact that Summum lost does not mean that the city’s leaders made good public policy when they kept the Ten Commandments and rejected the Aphorisms.
In fact, the leaders of both Summum and the city council are guilty of a similar kind of religious arrogance, which is totally inappropriate. And were it not for the arrogance of the former, it is highly doubtful that the members of the court would have all reached a unanimous decision in favor of the latter.
The members of Summum insisted that they had the right to say what they wanted, where they wanted and how they wanted. Nobody has that right, which is why they deserved to loose. But the insensitivity of the city council is just as bad.
What makes politicians in Pleasant Grove, or anywhere else, think they have the right to allow the placement of some religious monuments in public, while choosing to reject others? Public officials engaging in that kind of choice-making process violate the constitution and threatens our religious freedom. And it’s troubling that because of the premise of those who brought the suit, the city council’s behavior went unchallenged by the court in this case.
Even more disturbing is the mocking tone of Justice Antonin Scalia’s words in writing about the Court’s decision.
He said, “Pleasant Grove need not worry about breaching the ‘so-called’ wall of separation between church and state.” Is he kidding? And that’s a question coming from me, who believes that there ought to be room for religious displays in public places. It is not the job of government to assure that we live in a nation with a God-free or religion-free public square. In fact, it’s a dangerous practice to assure anybody’s freedom by curtailing that of others.
It is just as dangerous when government becomes the arbiter of which expressions of God or religion are allowed and which are not. So once the Ten Commandments are in, then other commandments, aphorisms, and sayings must be welcomed as well.
Anything short of a position which welcomes all, if it welcomes any, must fall. And who better than Mormons, who have been persecuted for generations, should know that? For a government comprised largely of those who have experienced some of the ugliest religious bigotry in our nation’s history to play casually with the marriage of religion and state power is simply amazing and simply unacceptable.
Having won their case, as they should have, the city council in Pleasant Grove should now either loose the Ten Commandments from Pioneer Park, or find some way to include Summum’s 7 Aphorisms — not because they endorse them equally, and not because they have no right to limit speech in public places, but because when it comes to people’s beliefs, doing otherwise threatens all of us.
By saying ‘yes’ to Summum, they are saying ‘no’ to precisely the kind of religious arrogance which harmed the Latter -day Saints. It’s the kind of religious arrogance to which the court also said no this week when it refused to hear a case from New Jersey regarding a high school football coach who wanted to lead his team in prayer.
Coach Marcus Borden liked to take a knee with his East Brunswick, N.J. team before games. The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, ruled that it was illegal for him to do so and the Supreme Court affirmed their decision by refusing to hear a further appeal. Thank God. And I mean that.
I believe that God and prayer are more than window dressing, and I believe that those who lead people in their relationships with either assume a very significant position of authority in the lives of those they lead. That is why coaches, or any other public officials should not freely assume such a role, especially over those whom they already have authority for other reasons.
Like the case in Utah, this is about the obligation of those in positions of power to exercise great caution with the power they have been granted, and great sensitivity over those whom they have it. Like the case in Pioneer Park, the failure on Coach Borden’s part is not his appreciation of the potentially unifying and focusing power of prayer, about which I think he is correct.
The coach’s failure lies in not considering those who don’t share his views. And when it comes to public religion, the first rule must always be, as it is in medicine, do no harm. About that, history shows us, there should be no debate.
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
posted March 5, 2009 at 4:00 pm
If the good rabbi would read the Supreme Court opinion in Summum, which he seems not to have done (I have), he would know that the Court ruled 9-0 against Summum because the case is one of GOVERNMENT SPEECH. The case had nothing to do with religion, despite the fact that Summum tried to create a lot of smoke and mirrors in that respect. When your argument gets spanked that hard by a Supreme Court that is usually extremely divided (9-0!), you are barking up the wrong tree. Summum and the good rabbi should stop trying to claim some sort of religious persecution — it was nothing of the kind.
posted March 5, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Why not?
God invented all the nature you see in a park…
Why can’t he hang out there?
posted March 6, 2009 at 9:57 am
For fifty years we, as a nation, have tolerated a minority among us chasing God from the public square. Along with that (and not surprisingly) has come the tolerance and even acceptance of every vice and immorality that Judaism and Christianity have taught against for millennia. A fair reading of history suggests that this process has heralded the decline ad fall of every civilization no longer extant.
So we continue to fiddle while the narcissists burn Western Civilization to the ground. If we don’t act, do we have any reason to expect God to give our prayers a fair hearing?
In this context, the question, “Does God belong in a public park?” becomes its own answer.
posted March 6, 2009 at 10:31 am
God belongs everywhere. We would not be here to build and have public places without God. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”. Gen. 1:1 . If we forget God, our nation will perish.
posted March 6, 2009 at 10:34 am
Does God belong in public parks? Who do you think allows us to have parks to enjoy. The government has no right to ignore God. God will take everything from our nation if we ignore Him.
posted March 6, 2009 at 10:47 am
I think that Justice Scalia and some of the commenters here are missing the point. Of course, “God” is already present in all places. The real question is, should one religion get to use public property as a way to prosthelytize to the rest of the taxpayers?
The ironic thing is that it’s typically a Christian fundamentalist group trying to post laws from the Torah. Jews do not prosthelytize.
posted March 6, 2009 at 10:47 am
Genesis Chapter 1
posted March 6, 2009 at 11:29 am
Folks, the First Amendment is about the government, not God. God may do whatever he pleases, but the government may not act with the same measure of freedom – and praise God for that.
posted March 6, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Dear friends:
While the 10 Commandments (10 Words) are the basis for what we mostly framed our social and theological beliefs’ foundation, they were actually mitigated to the greater good through the messages that Jesus taught. While he taught sporotual truths, he still held to the Law (Torah). What we end up with, then, are people who are espousing “Christianity” (A Greek word), who do not know the basis of that system.
I would suggest that if everyone went back to a non-sectarian school and studied Philosophy, Ancient Hebrew History AND the New Testament History, they might discover some things that would elevate their thought processes,because the more the mind is drawn into the Metaphysics of the writings, the less judgmental they would be.
posted March 6, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Speaking for myself, I believe the Goddess and God are a part of all creation.
Perhaps a better way of expressing this would be “Should religious monuments and shrines be in a Public Park? After all, this is essentially what the article is speaking about. In this case, I’d have to say no, simply because of you’re going to allow one religion, it’s only fair to allow others the same right. What happened, however, is the courts tossed it back to the community to decide. It may sound responsible but it isn’t, simply because you then have prejudices and bigotry ruling the decision. This statement is no way is intended to reflect poorly on Christianity as there are many Christians who, while not believing in another religion, see that in all fairness, the same courtesy should be given. In the more conservative Christian areas, that simply isn’t a consideration.
While some may not like this comment, you can find news articles all over this country supporting such a claim.
To end on a positive note, our Country isn’t perfect but we’ve made great strides in allowing religious freedoms to grow.
posted March 7, 2009 at 1:00 am
As a Rastafarian, I would like to see certain plantings in public places. But we are not even allowed to worship the Divine through our horticulture–certainly not in Utah. We certainly could honor your Ten Commandments or your ten words through our ceremonies that harm none and bring peace to all.
posted March 9, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Right on, Rabbi Hirschfield! However, “Dropping By” points out that the Court decision was in favor of GOVERNMENT SPEECH. Summum shoud have challenged the presence of the existing display, rather than demanding to join the parade! Further, the Court’s ultimate decision is even more henious! Succumbing to Antonin Scalia’s Epistles to the Americans, the Court actually says that GOVERNMENT SPEECH is the authority for promulgating religion in the USA. Shame, shame, shame – the Founding Fathers are watching!
posted March 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I am an Atheist. While I am happy that there are no more additional religious displays in a public park, I also don’t like that an overbearing majority religion gets to have their way here.
The 10Coms have been placed in almost every public space in every city of this nation. Although some zealous folks like to say that they are the basis for morality in the US, they are clearly not. One does not need to read the 10Coms to know right from wrong. They are religious and what I cannot accept is when these folks try to pass these and other ritualistic symbols off as secular. It just ain’t so. What they are is propaganda for Judeo-Christain religions It is proselytizing. I liken it to bullying.
Religious folk have built thousands of churches all across the country where they are free to go to practice their rituals and share their convictions – this is protected by the constitution. Once this behavior and influence spills outside the church or home, it is a completely different thing and constitutionality is questionable. If the religious would only keep their symbols and rituals where they belong, no one would be fighting about this. Currently, there are many many breaches of the constitution that have been largely instituted by power hungry Christians and McCarthyism and for now it is the Atheists that are challenging them. Just because there is the word god on our money, in our parks, city halls, and everywhere you turn does not make it right. I suspect Atheist will continue to litigate until the separation of state and church is largely realized.