The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case dealing with religious monuments and displays on public property.
At issue is a Utah case, in which a little-known religious organization formed 33 years ago, wants to have its principles posted in a municipal park in Pleasant Grove near a monument of the Ten Commandments.
The group, Summum, teaches that the tenets of its faith, the "Seven Aphorisms," were on the first stone tablets brought by Moses from Mount Sinai. According to the Bible, Moses smashed the first set of tablets. The Ten Commandments were subsequently delivered on a second set of tablets.
Summum is a Latin term meaning the sum total of all creation.
Summum, which was founded by a former Mormon, had sought to erect a monument of the "Seven Aphorisms," near a Ten Commandments statue that was donated to the city of Pleasant Grove by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971.
The city rejected the group's request, citing its requirement that park displays be related to local history or donated by organizations with longtime community ties, like the Eagles.
That prompted Summum to sue, on the grounds the city's refusal to allow their monument violated First Amendment free speech protections.
A federal judge sided with the city, but a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year agreed with Summum's argument that it was unfair for a municipality to allow one group's message on public property while excluding another's message.
The full appellate court split 6 to 6 on the issue, which meant the panel's ruling held.
In his dissent, Judge Michael McConnell warned that consequences would ensue if the appeals court decision was not overturned.
"Every park in the country that has accepted a VFW memorial is now a public forum for the erection of permanent fixed monuments; they must either remove the war memorials or brace themselves for an influx of clutter.
A city that accepted the donation of a statue honoring a local hero could be forced under the panel's rulings, to allow a local religious society to erect a Ten Commandments monument–or for that matter, a cross, a nativity scene, a statue of Zeus or a Confederate flag," McConnell stated.
The U.S. Supreme Court last took up the issue of displays of religious symbols on public property in 2005 in a pair of cases involving the Ten Commandments.
The high court upheld a four-decade-old granite monument of the Ten Commandments that sat among other statues and monuments on the grounds of the Texas capitol. However, in a separate ruling that same day, the justices struck down a move by county officials in Kentucky to display framed copies of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses.
In essence, the high court ruled that religious monuments on public property are constitutional, but suggested that other historical images or documents should be added to such displays to avoid an overtly religious tone.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the city of Pleasant Grove in the case, said it is pleased the high court will address the matter.
ACLJ Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, said, "The Supreme Court is faced with a dramatic opportunity: preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech–or permit a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to create havoc in cities and localities across America.
The lower court decision–if left unchecked–would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well-established patriotic, religious and historical displays. The lower court decision misses a key distinction between government speech and private speech. The government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own speech. The Tenth Circuit confused this rule when it said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments. It is our hope the Supreme Court steps in to correct this flawed reasoning," Sekulow said.
The ACLJ contends that the decision by the appeals court "threatens to wreak havoc upon governments at every level and their ability to control the permanent physical occupation of government land."
Liberty Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of various veterans' groups, urging the Supreme Court to take up the case.
Liberty Legal, in a statement, said, "If the Supreme Court rules for Summum, a monument mocking Vietnam veterans would have to be allowed next to the Iwo Jima memorial in Washington, D.C., as well as, a monument honoring al-Qaeda next to the 9-11 memorial."
Lawyer Brian Barnard, who is representing Summum, had hoped that the Supreme Court would decline to hear the case, which would uphold the appellate court ruling.
However, Barnard believes the justices will ultimately agree with the lower court ruling.
"It's simply a free speech issue. Public parks have been traditionally the place where free speech occurs. When a city like Pleasant Grove allows one group to put up a monument containing religious beliefs, I think the long-standing jurisprudence is that everybody gets to do it," Barnard said.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the case brings the high court back into a confusing and controversial area of constitutional law.
"If government creates an open forum, it can't pick and choose among religions. Government officials could have avoided this controversy by refusing to put up the Ten Commandments in the first place," Americans United Executive Director, Rev. Barry Lynn, said.
The American Humanist Association applauded the Supreme Court for agreeing to take up the case.
Association President, Mel Lipman, said, "Fair is fair. If Pleasant Grove, Utah, keeps its Ten Commandments monument on the pretext of Supreme Court rulings that allow such religious expressions on public property when included with others, then Pleasant Grove will have to allow others. On the other hand, if the city is willing to give up its Ten Commandments monument, then it can reject the Summum monument."
As for the city, Lipman concluded, "Now they must reap what they have sown. Either they get their monuments at the price of letting all others in, or they give them up–they can't have it both ways."
Rulings also have been handed down recently by lower courts regarding a pair of religious display cases on public property. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a 2005 decision by a federal judge in Seattle that a long-standing granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments outside the Everett, Washington, Police Department, does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
It was one of hundreds of granite monuments erected by the Fraternal Order of Eagles dating back to the 1950s -- in this case, in 1959.
The legal battle began in 2003 with an attempt by an Everett resident to have the six-foot-tall monument removed.
Americans United, which represented the plaintiff, expressed "disappointment in the ruling."
A.U. Legal Director, Ayesha Khan, said, "I think the court failed to appreciate the distinction between a comprehensive display [in Texas] that highlights the Ten Commandments' secular aspect, and a solitary display that broadcasts the Ten Commandments' religious aspects."
The Alliance Defense Fund, which funded a friend-of-the-court brief for the city filed by the National Legal Foundation, praised the decision.
ADF Senior Counsel, Glen Lavy, said, "Americans shouldn't be forced to abandon their religious heritage simply to appease someone's political agenda. The Ten Commandments should not be attacked just because someone might be offended by them. If someone is offended by the idea that religion is important to our society, then that person believes the opposite of what the authors of the Constitution believed."
In the other case, a federal judge permanently barred Grayson County, Kentucky, from using the Ten Commandments as part of a "Foundation of American Law and Government" display.
U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley said, the display had the "effect of endorsing religion." His ruling upheld a preliminary injunction issued in 2002 that resulted in county officials taking down the Ten Commandments, but leaving the empty frame on display.
As for the Summum case, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on it during its upcoming term that begins in October.
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:35-40
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]