A Stitch in Haste

Two lawsuits handed down from the mountaintop —

ITEM: A Kentucky theocrat trying to sneak a Decalogue into a county courthouse under the "comprehensive historical display" exception of McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was too clever for his own good:

Reverend Shartzer's public comments demonstrate that he had a clear religious purpose for requesting to erect the Foundations Display. The September 18, 2001, minutes of the Grayson County Fiscal Court reflect that "Reverend Chester Shartzer addressed the Court concerning his desire for the County to place the Ten Commandments in the County buildings." Reverend Shartzer indicated that "there were several Counties in the State who ha[ve] them in their Courthouses." The minutes further reveal that Reverend Shartzer "explained that some Counties ha[ve] them hanging in a group of other historical documents. He said he thought the Civil Liberties would look more favorable toward it if they were hanging in a grouping with the other historical documents."

The trial court had little choice but to acknowledge the open and notorious disingenuousness of the theocrat's wink-wink "sure it's secular" pretense, and subsequently struck down the display — which most likely would otherwise have withstood scrutiny under the McCreary - Van Orden bifurcation. An appeal is reportedly planned.

Meanwhile, the truly "Christian" approach — not trying to force your faith on others in the first place — never came up. Go figure. (ACLU of Kentucky v. Grayson County, NO. 4:01CV-202, March 27, 2008) (PDF - 23 pages). (Via Religion Clause.)

---

ITEM: The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case concerning an unusual Decalogue fact pattern in Utah:

In this case, a religious group that operates from a pyramid outside Salt Lake City wants to place what it calls the Seven Aphorisms in a city park, contending that the words are lesser-known instructions that Moses received from God.

Pleasant Grove City, Utah, said no. But a federal appellate court has agreed with the religious group Summum — founded in 1975 by its leader, Summum "Corky" Ra — that if a city accepts the Ten Commandments, it opens itself to requests from others and may not discriminate.

From a reality-based perch, I'd love to be sympathetic to the politicians and bureaucrats of Pleasant Grove City. (That would pretty much be a first for me as far as Utah is concerned.) It simply cannot be the case that anyone and everyone who wants to erect a permanent monument in a public park must be allowed to do so (anyone want to chip in for a Nat Taggart statue?).

But it also simply cannot be the case that the aforementioned politicians and bureaucrats should have plenary authority to decide — based on whim, caprice and political expediency (both licit and illicit) — which monuments will and will not be approved. If no reasonable and equitable standard can be crafted, then the only viable standard is no monuments at all — or at least no religious monuments. Which would of course be perfectly reasonable and equitable to absolutely everyone — except the theocrats who created this mess in the first place. Go figure. (Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, No. 07-665.)