Blood Orgies in the Park

The First Ammendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty clear, huh? That means permanent religious displays should be verbotten on public property. That's simple, and easy to understand...even to judicial conservatives who claim to stick to the framers' original intent. So why is the Supreme Court taking a case involving duelling religious displays in a public park?

The Aphorisms are the guiding principles of Summum, a religious organization that operates from a pyramid in Salt Lake City and practices mummification. They are so important to Summum that the group's founder, Summum "Corky" Ra, asked that they be displayed in a public park in Pleasant Grove, Utah, near a Ten Commandments monument.

Summum wants a religious display in a public park...a park where there's already the Ten Commandments display. To anyone with any sense, the answer is clear: the Constitution prohibits any religious display on public property. To allow any religious display is to respect the establishment of a religion. Why does it matter whether Summum should be allowed to engage in free speech? Free speech would involve Summum people standing in the park holding signs...a permanent display is different. The Constitutional answer is unambiguous: remove all the religious displays from the park. Let's see whether the Bush Supreme Court, and its recently-installed evangelicals and idealogues respect the framers' intent or twist logic to suit their ends.