Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum (a first amendment case)

I agree with his description of the case, and will now present my case. First, I must say - the religion of Summum is weird. First off, having been founded in 1975, it violates my own base-line spiritual rule: "Never believe in any faith younger than you are. " But as is true with most faiths, we must remember the First Aphorism of Religion Cases: Only the religious convictions of other people are weird. Yours are perfectly rational. The fact is, The more zealously the city claims ownership of its Ten Commandments monument, the more it looks to be promoting religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts puts it this way: "You're really just picking your poison. The more you say that the monument is 'government speech' to get out of the Free Speech Clause, the more you're walking into a trap under the Establishment Clause. … What is the government doing supporting the Ten Commandments? " Rebuttals to my opponents arguments - 1 - The Ten Commandments are being displayed as "civic history", not for religious reasons? Then where's Hammurabi's Code, the Corpus Juris Civilis, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, or the US Constitution (you know, the thing which outlaws government establishment of religion)? How is it that with the myriad of "civic history" that's much more relevant to legal development than the Ten Commandments, these Christians always end up showcasing the one document alleged to be dictated by "God" and telling us to have no other gods but Him? I mean, come on, we all know that "civic history" is an excuse -- a lie. A lie made deliberately, because the defenders of this know they're breaking the fundamental law of the land. The know they're law breakers, they know they're liars, but, hey, it's for their God so that makes everything a-OK, and furthermore, now it would impolite and intolerant of us to expose their lying, because hey, they're Good Christians™. This makes Christians look like hypocrites, especially given that Jesus told you to render unto Caesar and pray in secret. 2 - Pioneer Park is a public Park, supported with tax dollars. - Monuments can be construed to endorse state establishment of religion. The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, went further. "If government creates an open forum it can't pick and choose among religions. Government officials could have avoided this controversy by refusing to put up the Ten Commandments in the first place. " Oh, and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Speaking for myself, walking up to this monument as a layperson, I would recognize it immediately for what it is - The 10 Commandments. Example of monument in question - . http://upload.wikimedia.org... 3- "Erecting a monument hardly constitutes making a law respecting Christianity. " No, but refusing Summum does. That is what this case is about - not the legality of the city's monument, but the legality of refusing to place Summum's. "The city may decide what is best for the park, and what monuments are acceptable" No matter the name of the park, no matter it's history - the fact remains that it is a PUBLIC park, that is supported with tax dollars. Being so, it is seen as a public forum, and having this type of overt endorsement of Christianity on public grounds it tantamount to establishment. I look forward to the next round. . http://www.acslaw.org... . http://writ.news.findlaw.com... . http://www.religioustolerance.org...