In This Article
Subscribe to National Updates
Supreme Court to Hear Religion's Freedom of Speech Case
by
findingDulcinea Staff
On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum case, which highlights the issue of freedom of expression in public forums.
30-Second Summary
The Summum religious organization, which is based out of a pyramid in Salt Lake City, asked to erect a monument depicting its faith’s “Seven Aphorisms.” The aphorisms were to stand in a public park in Pleasant City, Utah, next to the Ten Commandments.
Summum "Corky" Ra founded the nonprofit group he shares a name with in 1975. It claims to derive many of its beliefs and practices (which include mummification) from ancient Egypt. According to The Washington Post, the group says the Seven Aphorisms “are lesser-known instructions that Moses received from God.”
The city refused the summum members' request, and they took the matter to court, arguing that their right to freedom of speech required the city to comply.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Summum, asserting that the Ten Commandments display, donated by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles in 1971, was private speech in a public forum, and therefore the city “could not arbitrarily refuse Summum’s request,” according to the First Amendment Center.
However, the city reasons that the Ten Commandments display became government speech once it was donated to the park, and the city is not required to maintain parity in that case.
Those opposed to Summum’s request invoke a broader, slippery-slope argument: if the Supreme Court supports Summum, public places throughout the country will have to accede to a potential flood of such requests; war memorials and patriotic historical monuments will be threatened by displays honoring contrary points of view.
A brief filed by a coalition of veterans groups said that this would mean that if someone wanted to erect a monument to Japanese kamikaze pilots next to the Iwo Jima memorial, the request would have to be honored.
Summum "Corky" Ra founded the nonprofit group he shares a name with in 1975. It claims to derive many of its beliefs and practices (which include mummification) from ancient Egypt. According to The Washington Post, the group says the Seven Aphorisms “are lesser-known instructions that Moses received from God.”
The city refused the summum members' request, and they took the matter to court, arguing that their right to freedom of speech required the city to comply.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Summum, asserting that the Ten Commandments display, donated by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles in 1971, was private speech in a public forum, and therefore the city “could not arbitrarily refuse Summum’s request,” according to the First Amendment Center.
However, the city reasons that the Ten Commandments display became government speech once it was donated to the park, and the city is not required to maintain parity in that case.
Those opposed to Summum’s request invoke a broader, slippery-slope argument: if the Supreme Court supports Summum, public places throughout the country will have to accede to a potential flood of such requests; war memorials and patriotic historical monuments will be threatened by displays honoring contrary points of view.
A brief filed by a coalition of veterans groups said that this would mean that if someone wanted to erect a monument to Japanese kamikaze pilots next to the Iwo Jima memorial, the request would have to be honored.
Headline Link: ‘With the Commandments, Must City Make Room?’
Summum bases its argument on the right to free speech. The case does not concern the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution, as have recent Supreme Court cases. A brief from Pleasant Grove argues that acceding to Summum’s request “could force local governments across the country either to dismantle a host of monuments, memorials, and other displays including long-standing patriotic and historical displays" or open up the public spaces "to all comers.” The brief also says that, "In short, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."
Source: The Washington Post (free registration may be required)
Key Player: Summum
Summum is a religious nonprofit organization based out of Utah. According to adherents, “summum” means “the sum total of all creation.” The group claims to follow ancient Egyptian beliefs, and practices mummification of the dead. The organization’s Web site states that “Summum is the only organization in the world to offer this remarkable and distinguished tradition.”
Source: Summum
Opinion & Analysis: Both sides of the debate
The First Amendment Center lays out the various arguments presented in the case. Pleasant Grove City argues that a monument donated by a private party to a government park becomes government speech, not private speech. Summum responds by saying the city had already “treated the Ten Commandments display as private speech before the litigation began.”
Source: First Amendment Center
The Daily Herald of Provo, Utah, rejects Pleasant Grove’s argument that allowing the Summum monument would open up the park to countless other similar requests. The Herald claims that the demand for such monuments is not as high as Pleasant Grove believes. The paper also states, “In a free society, ideas must compete in an open marketplace. Some ideas, especially religious ones, should not be given preferential treatment by the government.”
Source: Daily Herald (Provo, Utah)
The Gazette of Colorado Springs worries that permitting the display of the Seven Aphorisms would open up the country to a barrage of unacceptable claims: “Imagine the Statue of Tyranny in New York harbor, staring down the Statue of Liberty. It could feature the face of Adolf Hitler, or Pol Pot. Or how about a reverent statue of Osama bin Laden as part of New York City's World Trade Center Memorial?”
Source: The Gazette
Related Topic: ‘Supreme Court Splits on Ten Commandments’
In 2005, a divided Supreme Court ruled on two separate cases that concerned public display of the Ten Commandments by government officials. The court determined that it was constitutional to display the Ten Commandments as long as the display had a clearly secular purpose.
Source: Christian Science Monitor
Video: Stephen Colbert on the Ten Commandments in public places
Funny Hub provides comedian Stephen Colbert’s interview with Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, who co-sponsored a bill requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the House of Representatives and the Senate. When asked, Westmoreland was only able to name three commandments.
Source: Funny Hub
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
