From Deseret News archives:

10 Commandments up in air in Pleasant Grove

Published: Monday, Aug. 1, 2005 11:19 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
A Ten Commandments monument on city property in Pleasant Grove may not be appropriate after all, given recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the monoliths, a federal appeals court has ruled.

On Monday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent a case challenging the constitutionality of the Pleasant Grove monument back to Utah's federal court for further consideration of an earlier decision upholding its presence in the city park.

The Society of Separationists sued the city in September 2003, alleging the display of the monolith in Pleasant Grove City Park unconstitutionally endorses one religion over another.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June handed down decisions in two cases challenging the monuments — allowing one display outside the Texas State Capitol to remain but rejecting framed copies of the Ten Commandments inside a Kentucky courthouse.

In both decisions, the justices said there should be no blanket rule on the monuments but rather the issue should be handled on a case-by-case basis. As long as the display does not appear to endorse religion, such displays are appropriate, the high court said.

Story continues below
In light of those decisions, the 10th Circuit on Monday ordered U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins to reconsider his May 2004 ruling allowing the Pleasant Grove display to stand. Jenkins, upholding a 1973 ruling from the 10th Circuit, found that the Ten Commandments were largely secular and that "neither its purpose or effect tends to establish religious belief."

However, the appeals court noted, the recent U.S. Supreme Court action supersedes that earlier decision, and the Pleasant Grove matter needs additional fact-finding to determine why the monument was initially placed in the park.

"This says: Look at all the facts and try and divine the purpose and the goal of the government entity that was involved," Society of Separationists attorney Brian Barnard said Monday.

Under the Supreme Court rulings, a Ten Commandments monument is appropriate only if it can be shown it was not erected to promote religion.

Jenkins, in his May 2004 decision, determined that Ten Commandments displays are not religious in nature.

"No one and no religion has an exclusive claim to the icons of history. History belongs to all," the judge wrote. "The placement and display of the monolith at issue in this case is primarily secular in purpose, as an acknowledgment of one historic source of guidance and direction, one time-honored source of standards of human conduct."

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Once again we see a young player who signs for guaranteed $ millions and...

Utahns swap clunkers for trucks

Proigram Worked for you, but did not work for me. I would have preferred...

The Obama depression is coming our way. Impeach the fool before he destroys...

Letters: Gale's been taken in

At least you can continue preaching to the choir here at Des News. Never...

Letters: A poisonous potion

My candidate won, YOURS LOST! The American people voted for a President who...

Letters: Liberal rant amusing

this comes across as written by someone who lives their whole life based on...

I'm more worried about who the Jazz will pick with their own lottery pick...

Why would they walk over them? Why didn't they just walk around them?

Letters: Liberal rant amusing

About as funny as eight years with GWB, Cheney, Rove and the boys. Hopefully...

TCU showdown has big implications

I actually think you have the most reasonable argument and prediction on...

Advertisements
Advertisement