Ruling favors city in rejection of religious marker

This article is about the Supreme Court's ruling in a case involving religious displays in public parks. A religious group, the Summum, gave a granite marker to a Utah park. This park is already home to a Ten Commandments monument. The park refused to put up the Summum's marker, a permanent addition to the park. The court unanimously decided that the park's refusal to display the marker does not limit the Summum's right to free speech. In essence, public parks do not have to accept every gift they receive.

The article begins with the ruling, the most important aspect of the piece. It covers the who, what, when, and where. The why is somewhat covered in the remaining paragraphs.

Justice Samuel Alito is the only quoted source. He is, arguably, one of the most conservative justices the court has ever had. To make the article less biased, it would have helped to include a quote from a more liberal justice or from a member from the Summum group. The justices may have made their decision based on different facts, and knowing the reasons behind their decision will help the audience better understand the issue. Summum members are obviously hurt by the decision, and their insight on the case could shed new light on the situation. Alito’s quote used did not particularly address why the court made their decision. It meanders around the legalities of the topic and discusses the obvious: no one wants public parks flooded with religious advertisements.

For me, the article is missing why this case is so different from others involving freedom of speech and religion. The author mentioned that this instance would be a First Amendment case, had the park suppressed the Summum’s public speeches. But to me, this case is a lot deeper. Christians have their monument at the park (which has been there for 38 years). Yet, another religious sect cannot display their marker. This seemes unconstitutional to me, yet all justices agreed that public parks “are not compelled to take everything they are offered.” The author should better explain why this case is not discrimination based on one’s religious sect and it’s acceptance in America.

In general, I think the article should be more unbiased. It was clearly written for conservative readers, without allowing one liberal voice to make a statement. The government was the only side with a say in the matter; the Summums were not even given the chance to express their thoughts about the issue or the verdict of the case. A good article would have presented the reader with facts, allowing one to decide for him or herself if the decision was correctly made. This article only gave readers one side of the story, presumable the “right” side, and forced the audience to agree with it.

This article appeared in The News-Gazette on Feb. 26, 2009.