Alito Rules to "Imagine" No Religion

Image: Billboard by the Freedom From Religion Foundation
John Lennon was invoked as part of a unanimous decision today when the Supreme Court ruled against a religious group in Utah trying to erect a granite marker in a public park.

In a case involving the Salt Lake City-based Summum, the court said that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment. Pleasant Grove City, Utah, rejected the group's marker, prompting a federal lawsuit that argued that a city can't allow some private donations of displays in its public park and reject others. The federal appeals court in Denver agreed.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the court (pdf here) and stated that monuments do not fall under the First Amendment protection of free speech because "permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech" and that the religious group's argument "fundamentally misunderstands the way monuments convey meaning."

He then quoted the song "Imagine" as an example since New York City erected a monument with that word to honor Lennon's death.

Some observers may “imagine” the musical contributions that John Lennon would have made if he had not been killed. Others may think of the lyrics of the Lennon song that obviously inspired the mosaic and may “imagine” a world without religion, countries, possessions, greed, or hunger.

The entire song was then entered into the Supreme Court docket. So, in a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States we have the following opinion:


UPDATE: Summum is apparently a tiny religious sect founded by an ex-Mormon and is based on ancient Egyptian religious concepts. They even offer mummification for people and their pets (starting at the low, low price of $65,000). Doesn't seem any more bizarre than what's already out there in the name of religion. Incidentally, the park where Summum wanted to place their marker already hosts a statue of the Ten Commandments, which sort of sounds like an official government sanction of one religious belief over another. But what is it about Utah and their nutty religious cults?

[Read more →]

Courts Dismiss Great Ape Personhood

Austrian court case hits a snag, but the campaign is ongoing.


Matthew Hiasl Pan, a 28-year-old chimpanzee orphan is in legal limbo.

In my earlier post Trapped Between People and Property I highlighted the recent court cases raising the issue of primate personhood and legal standing. It seems there has been a temporary setback in the case of Matthew Hiasl Pan, a chimpanzee that has been making headlines in Austria.

The Associated Press is reporting that Pan’s case was dismissed from the provincial court on a technical issue because the judge ruled that his human advocates “had no legal standing to argue on the chimp's behalf.”

According to the AP:

The association, which worries the shelter caring for the chimp might close, has been pressing to get Pan declared a "person" so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests and provide him with a home.

…

Their upkeep costs about €4,800 (US$6,800) a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts.

Organizers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Pan, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years. But they contend that only personhood will give him the basic rights he needs to ensure he isn't sold to someone outside Austria, where he's now protected by strict animal cruelty laws.

The animal rights group, the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories who brought the case, is now appealing to the Austrian Supreme Court. According to group President Martin Balluch:

"The question is: Are chimps things without interests, or persons with interests? A large section of the public does see chimps as beings with interests. . . We are looking forward to hear what the high court has to say on this fundamental question."

As one who strongly agrees with the premise that apes should have legal rights (as have such notable figures as Jane Goodall, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Douglas Adams and Peter Singer – see The Great Ape Project) I’d say it’s long past the time that we regard other sentient beings as mere things and begin breaking down these barriers between human and non-human. Biologists and anthropologists have been breaking down this barrier for fifty years, when will this be reflected in our jurisprudence?

[Read more →]