How Do You Spell Hypocrite?

The Thomas More Law Center.

In you are unfamiliar with these folks, they’ve got a lot in common with Roy Moore, being fervent defenders of the state’s power to display the ten commandments:

The Thomas More Law Center announced Monday, December 13th [2004] that it has filed a friend of the court brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of Ten Commandments displays on public property.

So if state or local governments want to endorse Christianity, that’s all well and good. But what if some other religion wants to put its symbol on public property? All that stuff about acknowledging god and religious freedom goes out the window:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that followers of the Summum faith can display their Seven Aphorisms in Duchesne and Pleasant Grove city parks that already hold monuments of the Ten Commandments. 

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the parks are public forums, and restrictions on speech based solely on its content are forbidden except in narrow circumstances. 

The two decisions overturned rulings by U.S. District Judge Dee Benson that blocked Summum’s proposed monuments. In the Pleasant Grove case, the court said requiring the city to permit display of Summum’s tenets will further free speech. 

Salt Lake City attorney Brian Barnard, who represented Summum in both cases, applauded the rulings. “It’s a good day for the First Amendment,” he said. 

Pleasant Grove City Attorney Tina Peterson and Duchesne Mayor Clint Park declined comment Tuesday. They referred questions to Edward White III, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, which is helping defend the municipalities against the Summum lawsuits.

The blatant double standard gets worse. Guess who succesfully argued in a previous case that these same two cities – Pleasant Grove and Duchesne – had the power to put up the Ten Comandmanets momument? I’ll give you three guesses, but the first two don’t count, because this ought to be obvious:

In a ruling released yesterday, Federal District Judge Dee Benson held that Duchesne City, Utah, acted constitutionally when it sold land on which a Ten Commandments monument sits to keep from having to remove it. This is the second case within the past five months in which two public interest law firms, the Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice, have collaborated as co-counsel to prevent the removal of Ten Commandment Monuments in Utah.

The Duchesne decision comes within five months after another federal judge ruled in favor of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, allowing a separate Ten Commandments monument to remain on public property. The two public interest law firms acted as co-counsel in that case as well.

That blows my mind. It would be one thing to argue that there could be no religious displays in public property; or that the city must allow all religions equal access. Either of those options would be, I think, constitutional and a good idea. But to argue that a city gets to pick and choose which religions are allowed and which are not? How do these guys sleep at night?

Then again, despite the title to this post, they probably are not hypocrites. The TMLC is pretty open about their belief that the government can only endorse Christian beliefs:

The Thomas More Law Center affirms the right of Christians to publicly practice their religion and freely express their religious beliefs.

And that is exactly what they did in these two Utah towns: Fight for the right of Christians to publicly practice their religion, everyone else be damned.

BTW, here’s a link to the 10th Circuit’s decisions.

Explore posts in the same categories: Equal Protection, Establishment Clause, Free Speech, God and government, Goobers, National Politics

6 Comments on “How Do You Spell Hypocrite?”

  1. Himself Says:

    One of the benefits of living in NJ is that we have a lot of folks here from just about everywhere on the globe. Several towns in the New Brunswick area are popular with people from India and the make up the largest portion of the population. I alwaya wanted to see what would happen if prayer were allowed in the public schools and the teacher led a class in a Hindu prayer. I’d be willing to pay admission to sit in the courtroom for that trial.

  2. Kathy Says:

    How do you spell hypocrite? Based on this post, it’s either M-o-r-e or M-o-o-r-e.

  3. Dan Says:

    They’re consistent… just in a different way than what you’re thinking.

  4. DigitalPaths Says:

    Other ways to spell hypocrite is A-C-L-J and J-a-y S-e-k-u-l-o-w. Their website regarding this issue states “the ACLJ would faithfully stand for your freedom of speech” and on the same page state that other points of view should not be allowed. I thought our founding fathers intent was to guarantee freedom of speech not for some, but for all. Is not Summum guaranteed that same right? I cannot think of more blatant discrimination than this.

    The ACLJ’s website states that they will be reporting on freedom of religion in Turkey. What about freedom of religion in the good ole US of A? What about Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ’s attempt to censor the religious speech of Summum? Their stance is freedom of religion, as long as it is their religion.

    Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ jump up and down, wave their hands wildly, scream and shout, get everyone excited, and create a hysterical and mistaken belief that disaster is coming should Summum be allowed to express its point of view when such is not the case. They use Chicken Little “the sky is falling” tactics to solicit donations from people so that they can push their point of view above all others. That is a very dishonest thing to do.

    Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ are hypocrisy and discrimination at its best. If they are representatives and examples of what it means to be Christian, then I am embarrased to call myself a Christian.


  5. […] I posted about this case after the Circuit Court decision. That post is a bit more serious, and has all the relevant links.) Possibly related posts: (automatically […]

    • August Hinton Sr. Says:

      Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ are neither hypocrisy nor discrimination. They are great defenders of truth and liberty at it’s very best. The founding fathers of this nation never intended to endorse false religions such as satanism,muslim, buddah etc. they were speaking of freedom to worship the one and only True God according to the dictates of your.heart regardless of denomination.this nation was founded on Judeo Christian principles period. And today it is still prdominately a Christian Nation.
      The are ACLJ are great representatives and examples of what it means to be Christian, and I am very proud of their intelligence,courage,faith and patriotism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: