Document Type

Article

Publication Date

Winter 2009

Publication Source

Valparaiso University Law Review

Abstract

In this article, we examine the issues that bring First Amendment jurisprudence to the grant of certiorari in Pleasant Grove v. Summum, scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court of the United States in November. We examine the historical basis for America’s religious heritage, the historical judicial treatment of the religious clauses, and the erosion of the wall of separation between church and state. We examine the Ten Commandments, finding inherent discrimination present in modern-day attempts to advance a particular version of the Ten Commandments as secular. By drawing upon Rousseau’s civic religion, we suggest alternative routes for the Court to pursue in similar cases in the future, including a resolution on the vexing questions posed by Summum and the monument in Pleasant Grove. We argue that in light of America’s increasing religious diversity and our rising religious intolerance, the Supreme Court should set aside an article or two of conservative ideology in order to better serve the long-term interests of an increasingly diverse American people.

Inclusive pages

595-639

ISBN/ISSN

0042-2363

Document Version

Published Version

Comments

This article, published in the Valparaiso University Law Review, is provided in this open access institutional repository with the permission of author Terence Lau in compliance with the Law Review's policy on archiving.

Permission documentation is on file.

Publisher

Valparaiso University

Volume

43

Issue

2

Peer Reviewed

yes