By Brandon Stoker
A Utah federal judge decided that Moses will not have to testify in a court hearing about the Ten Commandments and its original author.
A lawsuit challenging the placement of a Ten Commandments monument in Pleasant Grove has been thrown out because U.S. Senior District Judge Bruce Jenkins ruled the marker is more historic than religious.
'No one and no religion has an exclusive claim to the icons of history,' Jenkins wrote in his ruling. 'History belongs to all.'
There has recently been a push across the nation to remove Ten Commandment monuments and plaques from public areas. Numerous Utah cities have removed their markers because of action taken by civil action groups. Salt Lake City and Ogden both moved their monuments to private property after lawsuits were issued against them.
The Society of Separationists was the plaintiff in this case. Their organization''s goals are to ensure the separation of church and state across the nation. Brian M. Barnard, the society''s legal representation, said Pleasant Grove was using dishonest tactics in the legal battle.
'I find it kind of ironic that in order for Pleasant Grove to keep its monument in place they have to deny the religious nature of it,' Barnard said. 'If someone has deeply-held religious beliefs, they should be able to publicly announce them. Instead the leadership of Pleasant Grove is taking this less than forthright route.'
In his order throwing out the lawsuit, Jenkins said he was looking forward to the plaintiff''s 'factual assertion that the Ten Commandments were personally and directly revealed by God to Moses,' something that would have proved the monument''s religious nature. However, the plaintiffs didn''t need to present the evidence because the case was thrown out based on an earlier ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The prior ruling, Whitehead, 1973, held that the Decalogue was indeed a historical icon, thereby making it legal to display on public property.
Barnard said they were anticipating Jenkins'' ruling. Their plan was to take the failed lawsuit and appeal to the 10th Circuit Court so they could actually challenge the former ruling that Jenkins relied on for his verdict.
'I don''t think Judge Jenkins could have done anything different from what he did,' Barnard said. 'The Whitehead case needs to be reviewed.'
The point of the lawsuit was to eventually gain an opportunity to appeal the case before the higher court in an attempt to change the precedent. Mike Rivers, spokesman for American Atheists, said he thinks the 10th Circuit will see things differently than judges here in Utah.
'I believe they will ask it to be removed because they''re not held by the constraints that we are held to here,' Rivers said. 'I wouldn''t call them liberal, we''re just asking for fairness ... it is a religious statement, and the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. If you remove religion from politics then you have an even playing field. That''s all we want.'