"Seven Aphorisms" Not Yet Written In Stone
The U.S. Supreme Court announced March 31 that it will hear a Utah dispute over a religious group’s request for a display of its religious messages, called “Seven Aphorisms,” in a city park alongside a Ten Commandments monument. The Supreme Court granted cert. for a review of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, in favor of the Salt Lake City-based religious group.
The group, called Summum, had argued before the 10th Circuit that city officials could not constitutionally approve the Ten Commandment display while excluding other religious monuments. Adherents of Summum believe in an ancient Egyptian meditative process and beings from outer space. Among its Aphorisms are statements, such as “Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates,” and “Gender is everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principle; Gender manifests on all levels.”
Summum’s Web site states that it seeks to help individuals gain “experiences that will awaken us to the spirit within and to our place in the matrix of Creation’s formulations.” Pleasant Grove City officials urge the Supreme Court to overturn the 10th Circuit decision and allow city officials to block the Summum display.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a conservative religious legal group, maintained that the high court has an opportunity to “preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech.” The city officials, represented by the ACLJ, argue that they should not be forced to open the public park to all groups seeking erect religious or other displays.
Brian Barnard, an attorney with Utah Legal Clinic, who has represented Summum for many years, countered that the city should be welcoming to other expressions of faith. “It’s a matter of simple fairness,” he told The Associated Press.
Written By:Shrdlu42 On April 3, 2008 9:56 PM Written By:Bob Ritter On May 2, 2008 7:18 AM
When I first read the 10th Circuit's opinion, I figuratively yelled "Go Summum." But then, as I mulled a position for an amicus in the case my tune change to "Oh no."
While I support free speech, to me, that's not the real issue. When the federal, state or local govern erects a permanent monument (or allows a donated one) in a public park, it's GOVERNMENT SPEECH.
So as I write the amicus in Summum, I'm going to pinch my nose and support Pleasant Grove City.
Then, I will look at suing Pleasant Grove City to remove the Ten Commandments monument as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither monument belongs in the park under our secular form of government. To do so would favor religion over non-religion which is not permissible under our Constitution (in addition to the endorsement problem).
Funny, isn't it. For years "conservatives" argued that anything short of creating a national religion didn't violate the First Amendment, and that all that was required of the government was that it be "neutral" on matters of religion. Now (gasp) the conservative ACLJ takes the position that government can pick and choose which "religious message" it will post/sponsor/allow/whatever. Of course, by a strange coincidence, we can expect the ACLJ and the conservatives only to favor those messages conformable with conservative Christianity. I wonder if they know how to spell the word hypocrites?!