Post Page Advertisement [Top]

Religious Liberty Contradictions in Supreme Court Case

Ethics Daily ran my latest piece today, which is entitled "Religious Liberty Contradictions in Supreme Court Case." It examines some of the arguments made by Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, in the recent case Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.


  1. You can't look at these things in a vacuum. First, off, the Ten Commandments are not exclusive to Christianity. I find it ironic that you would not take that into consideration. A bit religious centric of you.

    You also completely overlooked the historic play of the Ten Commandments in our judicial system. Why is it against the law to rob and kill?

    If we don't give any validity to our measure of what is right and wrong, we leave the door open for things like Sharia Law (

    For God sake, shut up!

  2. Eric: Thanks for the comment. Although the Ten Commandments are revered by more than one religious group, that does not mean the government should prevent other religious minorities from having their voice heard also. However, the issue here ultimately is not about the Ten Commandments. It is about equal access. A private group was allowed to erect a monument of the Ten Commandments. The city at that point cannot pick and choose who gets to put up monuments. Oh, and since you like the phrase, I hope you'll read the book!

  3. The Seven Aphorisms ( of Summum have no historic influence on the United States judicial system and rule of law. The Ten Commandments, however, do. So, from a historic view, there is no argument. but, that isn't the only argument ...

    The city DOES have the right to pick and choose what monuments it places in its public park. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to stop a statue of Stalin being erected next to the Statue of Liberty.


Bottom Ad [Post Page]