Tuesday, April 1, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

by LA Times

Thanks to Derrick Byford for the link.

Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'
Must a city park that displays one monument also permit others'?
By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON -- If a city allows a monument with the Ten Commandments to be erected in a public park, must it also allow other religions and groups to display monuments of their choosing? The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up that question in an unusual dispute over the reach of the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech.

In the past, the court has said the free-speech rule applies in parks and officials may not discriminate against speakers or groups because of their message. In this context, freedom of speech means a freedom from government restrictions.

But last year, the U.S. appeals court in Denver extended this free-speech rule to cover the monuments, statues and displays in a public park. It ruled in favor of a religious group called Summum, which says it wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" next to the Ten Commandments in Pioneer Park in Pleasant Grove, Utah.

Its ruling left the city with an all-or-nothing choice: Allow Summum and others to erect their own displays in the park, or remove the other monuments.

The city's lawyers called the appeals court ruling "confused" and "flawed" and said it could cause problems around the nation.

"We're delighted that the Supreme Court agreed to take this critical case," said a statement by Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which filed an appeal for Pleasant Grove.

He continued: "The lower court ruling -- if left unchecked -- would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well-established patriotic, religious and historical displays."

Sekulow argued that monuments are the property of the city and are not akin to private free speech.

But the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Pleasant Grove invited problems by allowing the Ten Commandments monument. "If government creates an open forum, it can't pick and choose among religions," Lynn said in a statement.

When the Supreme Court has taken up the Ten Commandments in the past, it has done so to decide whether a city or state display violates the 1st Amendment's bar against "an establishment of religion."

In 2005, the court issued split decisions.

It upheld a 4-decade-old granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments that sat among other statues and monuments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. However, in a separate ruling on the same day, it struck down a move by county officials in Kentucky to display the commandments in courthouses.

The court will hear Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum in the fall.

david.savage@latimes.com

Posted: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 43 of 43 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #153287 by Sally Luxmoore on April 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

Time for the Pastafarians to start engraving their own monument.

Perhaps we should arrange for a similar stonework version of the atheist 10 commandments that Richard found on the internet and quoted in TGD.

The more, the merrier!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

2. Comment #153297 by zane9 on April 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

For a moment, I thought this was an April Fool joke.

Other Comments by zane9

3. Comment #153300 by Gymnopedie on April 1, 2008 at 11:10 am

Calling all Satanist, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Humanists, Pastafarians...

Sort of a silly way to solve the problem, but it gets the job done when needed.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

4. Comment #153342 by cowalker on April 1, 2008 at 12:05 pm

It will be rather fun in the parks to watch the Christian parents explaining the blessing "May the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with his noodly appendage" and the significance of the upside down pentacle to their wee ones.

Other Comments by cowalker

5. Comment #153371 by Darwin's badger on April 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Jay Sekulow, or Secular? April 1st, I expose thee.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

6. Comment #153372 by Darwin's badger on April 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Oh for f&ck's sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Alan_Sekulow

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

7. Comment #153415 by Alkal on April 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm

If I were to form a religion that includes only myself would I b allowed an engraving of "Allytude is great" on the stone monument there, that is the "commandment" of my faith...

Other Comments by Alkal

8. Comment #153430 by drbreakfast on April 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I'm a lawyer in the U.S., but no 1st Amendment specialist. But this seems like a great opportunity to raise public awareness of how this is NOT a Christian nation. Will Ed Tabash file an amicus ("friend of the court" brief?

Other Comments by drbreakfast

9. Comment #153439 by Gymnopedie on April 1, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Tabash, American Atheists, et al... have talked about all the cases we would love to pursue in the US, but don't have the funds to. In the end, that is the American court system: a test of richness.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

10. Comment #153460 by padster1976 on April 1, 2008 at 1:40 pm

And if they won't have them - they shouldn't have any!

Hurrah!

Other Comments by padster1976

11. Comment #153494 by Naturalist1 on April 1, 2008 at 2:02 pm

drbreakfast: You said,"But this seems like a great opportunity to raise public awareness of how this is NOT a Christian nation." If you please, I would like to learn more about this. How could this opportunity be utilized?
Thank you,
Darrell

Other Comments by Naturalist1

12. Comment #153503 by Crocket Lauderdale on April 1, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Yes, I'd love to see the Pastafarian "8 - I'd rather you didn'ts."

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

13. Comment #153504 by sarah95 on April 1, 2008 at 2:11 pm

But the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Pleasant Grove invited problems by allowing the Ten Commandments monument. "If government creates an open forum, it can't pick and choose among religions," Lynn said in a statement.

Hear hear! I love it when Christians squirm about letting other religions' nonsense commandments into the arena of ostentious public display (often in front of courthouses). You know they only care about religious freedom if it applies to their religion. Some patriotism.

On a slightly unrelated note, like most people, I don't give a flying F*** about the 10 commandments or where they're displayed(ie, the above case), but I don't want my taxes funding some show-off waste of money monument. Spend it on education, research, defense, anything but some stupid religious monument, especially one that's not an equal-opportunity for other religions.

Other Comments by sarah95

14. Comment #153562 by Antipotheosis on April 1, 2008 at 3:06 pm

hopefully it will become an open forum for any group to construct a monument to their chosen moral principles...some notable ones would obviously be FSM's 8 I'd rather you didn'ts; the actual punishments associated with the Ten Commandments, several Atheist and/or Secular versions of the Ten Commandments, The Universal Declaration on Human Rights; and The Secular Humanist Declaration certainly deserve monuments to be erected for their display...

Other Comments by Antipotheosis

15. Comment #153605 by dloubet on April 1, 2008 at 4:34 pm

It reminds me of that awesome Snicker's advertisement: The ad opens in a football team locker room during the pre-game prayer. When the priest finishes, a rabbi takes his place, and the camera pans back to reveal a line of various religious figureheads snaking out the door. The voice-over asks, "Gonna be there for a while? Have a Snicker's."

That's the whole issue in a nutshell.

Other Comments by dloubet

16. Comment #153621 by atheists-r-us on April 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm

If you want an amusing read google "Seven Aphorisms of Summum". From their website we are advised:
"When Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the first set of tablets containing the aphorisms, he observed the immature behavior and attitude of the Israelites. Moses realized they were incapable of understanding the principles of Creation and were in no way ready for them. So Moses destroyed the stone tablets and revealed the aphorisms to a select few".
The Seven aphorisms are:
THE PRINCIPLE OF PSYCHOKINESIS, THE PRINCIPLE OF CORRESPONDENCE, THE PRINCIPLE OF VIBRATION, THE PRINCIPLE OF OPPOSITION, THE PRINCIPLE OF RHYTHM, THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT, THE PRINCIPLE OF GENDER

The bit on Wikipedia about "Summum Golden Pyramid Winery" indicates some hope!

Other Comments by atheists-r-us

17. Comment #153634 by rydrum2112 on April 1, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Some one needs to get to get the FSM's list up (or written in stone and displayed).

Other Comments by rydrum2112

18. Comment #153658 by fatewilleatyou on April 1, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I like the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" offense. It's been difficult for reason and law to overcome the God argument.
If your school wants your children to pray. Let your child pray to Ben 10 or Hannah Montana, all the other kids will convert along or wish they could.

Other Comments by fatewilleatyou

19. Comment #153664 by JackBlair on April 1, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Hell, let everyone in on it. Our monuments are ghastly these days, anyhow.

Other Comments by JackBlair

20. Comment #153697 by dragonfirematrix on April 1, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Ah... as religion blossoms beautifully into a toxic plant...

We have Christians in America, who want government to enforce their religious symbols in public places, and push their beliefs in public arenas (E.g. - courts, schools, work, etc.)

I have been longing for the confrontation with this dilemma to begin, which, if left unchecked, will only increase and complicate the problem over time. This toxic plant will grow and regress the free world into a bunch of bickering, violent denominations (sects) of Neanderthals (please see Islam for examples). No matter which road the 2008 American court takes, the reality is probably going to be: "Huston, we have problem." My special thanks go to Mr. George W. Bush for all he has contributed to this GD problem.

Other religions want the same treatment from the government enabling them to display their religious symbols in public arenas. I want the Secular Humanist message displayed along side of government approved Christian monuments. I am sure Humanists would also like recognition, as would the Wicca, the Atheists, the Zeusists, the Neptunists, and (ooooh) the Venusists, and others. If America really believes in the "freedom of religion," why are not the beliefs of others that differ from Christianity given equal time?

Okay, U.S. Supreme (whatever) court, it is your turn to chatter.

So…

Only now, when it is possibly too late to change course, might the religious fanatics of America understand the reason for the Separation of Church and State. Then again, it is not likely they will ever understand.

I offer my condolences to the pushy religious of America for starting this problem in our free (for now) country.

The law should require religion to be a private family matter.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

21. Comment #153707 by Wosret on April 1, 2008 at 9:48 pm

The extraordinarily similar ones out of "The Book Of The Dead" should be put beside the ten commandments.

Other Comments by Wosret

22. Comment #153741 by bamboospitfire on April 2, 2008 at 1:19 am

If the Supreme Court has any sense at all it will pull down all the monuments and save everyone a lot of time and trouble whilst simultaneously saving the Xtians a huge amount of embarrassment. Whilst it would be amusing to watch the Eight I'd Rather You Didn'ts go up alongside the Ten Commandments with equal status in law, which would have the theists foaming at the mouth, surely it would be better for the sensible, constitutional approach to be adopted from the word go. In any event, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to get on this right now. Whatever happens, this opportunity is solid gold and should not be missed.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

23. Comment #153747 by jo5ef on April 2, 2008 at 1:31 am

I also had a look at the article in wiki, i have to admit i find the early evolution/speciation of these nascent religions fascinating. Utah seems to be a veritable Galapagos.

Other Comments by jo5ef

24. Comment #153753 by Shuggy on April 2, 2008 at 1:53 am

I don't see that allowing everything is a solution, when the first four of the 10 Commandments are so toxic to all but their believers. Sure nobody could argue with Thou Shalt Not Kill (including zygotes, and except thy enemies and feeble-minded 16-year-olds whose lawyers were asleep) and Thou Shalt not Steal (but creative tax returns are OK), but those are about the only ones.

No other gods but Me? There goes freedom of religion.

No making/worshipping graven images? What if it's part of my religion?

Other Comments by Shuggy

25. Comment #153758 by Ygern on April 2, 2008 at 1:59 am

How about a recommendation that people keep their religious graven idols wrapped in canvas & buried in a box under their bed where it belongs?

Other Comments by Ygern

26. Comment #153763 by Mal3 on April 2, 2008 at 2:24 am

Reckon we could get the Pentabarf (upside down, of course) displayed next to the ten commandments as well?

I suppose we'd have to have a smaller version carved right side up in the name of religious tolerance.

Hail Eris.

Other Comments by Mal3

27. Comment #153779 by black wolf on April 2, 2008 at 4:20 am

From Sekulow's statement above and from his Wiki bio page, his agenda is very clear. He wants government to work in favor of his agenda, and then placed outside of criticism when the agenda is realized. News for Mr. Sekulow: the government is property of the people, not the other way around.

Other Comments by black wolf

28. Comment #153785 by D'Arcy on April 2, 2008 at 4:43 am

This discussion reminds me of the signs you sometimes see in pubs:

"In God We Trust

All others pay cash!"

Other Comments by D'Arcy

29. Comment #153787 by Geoff on April 2, 2008 at 4:49 am

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/10_Commandments.html

1. Thou shalt have no other Search Engine before me, neither Yahoo nor Lycos, AltaVista nor Metacrawler. Thou shalt worship only me, and come to Google only for answers.

2. Thou shalt not build thy own commercial-free Search Engine, for I am a jealous Engine, bringing law suits and plagues against the fathers of the children unto the third and fourth generations.

3. Thou shalt not use Google as a verb to mean the use of any lesser Search Engine.

4. Thou shalt remember each passing day and use thy time as an opportunity to gain knowledge of the unknown.

5. Thou shalt honor thy fellow humans, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race, for each has invaluable experience and knowledge to contribute toward humankind.

6. Thou shalt not misspell whilst praying to me.

7. Thou shalt not hotlink.

8. Thou shalt not plagiarise or take undue credit for other's work.

9. Thou shalt not use reciprocal links nor link farms, for I am a vengeful but fair engine and will diminish thy PageRank. The Google Dance shall cometh.

10. Thou shalt not manipulate Search Results. Search Engine Optimization is but the work of Microsoft.

Other Comments by Geoff

30. Comment #153789 by j.mills on April 2, 2008 at 5:06 am

Ten Commandments engraved on a monument
Till the lawyers of Summum's god on you leant.
So you go to the court
Where the Summums retort:
"Our seven, your ten - or was it NONE you meant?"

Other Comments by j.mills

31. Comment #153804 by 4horsefins on April 2, 2008 at 5:36 am

1. Thou shalt not refuse children medical care.
2. Thou shalt not label children with their own beliefs.
3. Thou shalt not know what happens after death.
4. Thou shalt not refuse Darwinian evolution until you have read the origin of species and the blind watch maker.
5. Thou shalt not put any God's before me, even though I am the only one.

someone give me 5 more

Other Comments by 4horsefins

32. Comment #153837 by rod-the-farmer on April 2, 2008 at 6:30 am

Two points. I agree strongly with those who say this is an opportunity not to be missed. We need to fund the making and erection of a stone monument (as close as possible, identical to the one with the xian 10 commandments), to be placed right beside it. Off-hand I can't remember if there ARE similar points for the FSM, but if not, surely they can be created in a short time. Once installed, the monument will get enormous press, plus draw the obvious comparisons for anyone walking by, who sees both items. Where do we send our donations to this worthy cause ? Let's roll.

Second point. The idea of multiple religious sects each having their own version of the 10 commandments carved on adjacent stone pillars sounds strangely familiar. Wait....wait.... NOW I remember where I saw this before. Stonehenge.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

33. Comment #153844 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 6:41 am

Ultimate frisbee in the park will be quite the challenge with all those monuments to sacred rules dotting the landscape.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

34. Comment #153874 by 3legcat on April 2, 2008 at 7:03 am

they have a gift shop!

http://www.cafepress.com/summum/3188915

Other Comments by 3legcat

35. Comment #153891 by rae on April 2, 2008 at 7:30 am

Man, I can see what's coming a mile away. The Supreme Court will overturn the U.S. Appeals Court ruling (by something like 5-4 or 6-3, I'd wager).

The opinion of the court will say something about how the majority of public space (or all of it) ought to go to the majority group, as the minority group would be given disproportionate power over the majority group if their beliefs were to be treated equally by the law.

Also, I see "ceremonial deism" being invoked, with the observation that it's not really representing anything religious, it's just cultural and ritual. But all of the other religious monuments are representative of religions, so local governments will be legally justified in removing all but the Xian monuments. Which aren't religious.

I can't help being cynical, or believe that they'll rule in a reasonable fashion, with the current, insane make-up the Court has now.

Other Comments by rae

36. Comment #153942 by Christopher Davis on April 2, 2008 at 8:50 am

Problem is, that no matter how this comes out Christians are going to interpret it as an attack on their religion.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

37. Comment #153990 by Kylyssa Shay on April 2, 2008 at 11:05 am

"Its ruling left the city with an all-or-nothing choice: Allow Summum and others to erect their own displays in the park, or remove the other monuments. ..."

Jay Sekulow - "The lower court ruling -- if left unchecked -- would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well-established patriotic, religious and historical displays."

This fellow is so blinded by his hatred of everything non-Christian he doesn't even recognize the stated alternative - that all religious displays be given space. Apparently, some members of the religious right would rather remove all of their icons from the public rather allow another religion to put anything out there.

It's amusing how any expression of religion other than Christianity is seen as an attack against Christianity in this country.

Other Comments by Kylyssa Shay

38. Comment #153994 by al-rawandi on April 2, 2008 at 11:14 am

Kylyssa Shay,

Sekulow is a Jew. He attended a Bible College in Georgia where he became a "Jew for Jesus".

He then served as general counsel for "Jews for Jesus". He has since teamed up with Pat Robertson and has presented many cases before the Supreme Court. He is famous for winning them on unanimous or near unanimous decisions.

He never argues freedom of religion or the establishment clause, he argues freedom of speech, which shall not be circumscribed or subject to prior restraint.

He started as a tax lawyer but his practice went under, as did all his real estate investments. Apparently, Jesus did not love him back.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

39. Comment #153998 by al-rawandi on April 2, 2008 at 11:16 am

Also,

Sekulow's mother went to school with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in New York.

Sekulow's arguments have been a powerful force for the Federalist Society.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

40. Comment #154097 by Dr Benway on April 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I hope the theists win this one. Here's why:

1. I could care less about monuments.
2. My centrist friends say, "never happen" when I talk about the theocrats rolling back Roe v Wade.

Ergo, nice wake up call.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

41. Comment #154116 by MelM on April 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Please, no commandments; they contain an extra, implicit "don't think" commandment.

Instead, just state "Actions that I/we claim are good for you" with documentation of the supporting facts and arguments.

Other Comments by MelM

42. Comment #154212 by Dogzilla on April 2, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Comment #153891 by rae

Also, I see "ceremonial deism" being invoked, with the observation that it's not really representing anything religious, it's just cultural and ritual. But all of the other religious monuments are representative of religions, so local governments will be legally justified in removing all but the Xian monuments. Which aren't religious.

In that the Catholic and Protestant versions of the 10 differ for theological reasons (with some Protestant versions emphasizing the "no graven idols bit", and the Catholics, for understandable reasons, downplaying it), displaying either version could lead to the other group claiming state establishment/endorsement of a particular sect. In any case, it will be interesting to see how the 5/9ths Catholic Supreme Court fields it.

Other Comments by Dogzilla

43. Comment #155700 by Ed-words on April 5, 2008 at 9:27 am

to 4HORSEFINS

Thou SHALT know what happens after death!

(Ugh!)

Other Comments by Ed-words

Reload Comments | Back to Top