U.S. Supreme Court Discusses Monuments on Government Property

Potter County Attorney Scott Brumley
Potter County Attorney Scott Brumley
Randall County Attorney James Farren
Randall County Attorney James Farren

It's a debate that's raged for years and now has renewed vigor in the United States Supreme Court.. Just what type of monuments should be erect on government property.

The Court says it's legal to have the Ten Commandments on government property..

But now the debate is whether statues or monuments like those dedicated to veterans or others opens it up for any type of monument to be presented..

So, in theory, a statue of Hitler could be next to a world war two monument.

Potter County Attorney Scott Brumley says,"When the ten commandments issue came up in Potter county, that was the concern we had, that was the concern that was just as viable as a suit."

Brumley says potter county voted against a religious monument because of concerns all types would want to be constructed.

But the county does have a war memorial..

Something Justices are still heavily debating on whether it opens the door for any statue.

"The Justices are just as uncomfortable trying to draw the line, and as you see in first amendment cases they are usually reluctant to draw a bright line." Brumley says.

Randall County tries to avoid the problem all together.. Not allowing any type of monument.

Randall County Attorney James Farren says, "Some folks almost seem to be looking for a fight, looking for a battle."

A battle the county won't get into because there are other options.

"We can buy some land right adjacent to government property, and build a monument just as big as we want. And it's perfectly ok." Farren says.

Both men say it's not about their religious beliefs..

But think of it like this... If you are Christian, you may not have a problem with prayer in schools..

But what if that prayer was to Allah? or visa versa.