The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit

[Ed Brayton]

I wrote about this today after seeing it on Howard Friedman's blog. What
jumps out at me is the lengths the two cities, particularly Duchesne
City, went to in order to preserve exclusive access for their own
preferred religion to have such monuments. I hope we can all at least
agree that if you're going to allow such monuments to go up on public
property, allowing only one religion to place such monuments on public
property and no other religion is a clear establishment clause
violation.
 
Ed Brayton
 
-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:50 PM
To: Religionlaw
Subject: The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit



Received from another listserv:

 

The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit: Summum -- a
religion that supports both mummification
<http://www.summum.us/mummification/>  and masturbation
<http://www.sexualecstasy.org/divinemasturbation.php>  -- had the
brilliant idea to approach towns in Utah that displayed Ten Commandments
monuments to ask for "equal time" to display monuments to the Seven
Aphorisms of  <http://www.summum.us/philosophy/principles.shtml> Summum.


Pleasant Grove, Utah simply said "no" in response to the request, and
today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth  <http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/> Circuit directs the entry of a
preliminary injunction requiring the municipality to allow the display
of the Summum monument. You can access the ruling at this link
<http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-4057.pdf> . 

Duchesne City, Utah was equally unenthusiastic about the prospect of a
Summum monument, but instead of merely saying "no" the municipality
thought it would be beneficial to transfer its Ten Commandments monument
and the patch of public parkland on which it resides to private
ownership. Duchesne's actions make this case a bit more complicated, but
the Tenth Circuit today holds that Duchesne is not necessarily absolved
of liability on Summum's claim for injunctive relief. You can access the
ruling at this link
<http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/05/05-4162.pdf> . 

In press coverage of today's rulings, The Salt Lake Tribune provides a
news update headlined "'Seven Aphorisms' equal to 10
<http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5688321> Commandments, appeals court rules." 

And two Saturdays ago, The Deseret Morning News published articles
headlined "Thou shalt not
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660209584,00.html> ...
underestimate impact of the Ten Commandments" and "Displays a source
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660209598,00.html> of friction."
Posted at 10:50 PM  <http://howappealing.law.com/041707.html#024368> by
Howard Bashman <mailto:appellateblog at hotmail.com>  

 

 

Joel L. Sogol

Attorney at Law

811 21st Avenue

Tuscaloosa, Alabama  35401

ph: (205) 345-0966

fx:  (205) 345-0971

email:  jlsatty at wwisp.com

 

 

Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we
have evidence rules in U.S. courts.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070418/81e90f03/attachment.htm