The Thomas More Law Center.
The Thomas More Law Center announced Monday, December 13th  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.