# Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum: public religious displays **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236 "2008-11-11T20:24:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/21 "2008-11-12T02:26:45Z")
My take is that it’s hard to argue against the Summum, in this case. The arguments about “longstanding ties” and such are just so much smoke. I can see how allowing the ten commandments and not the “Seven Aphorisms”, is anything other than a state endorsement of one religion over another. And is why putting the 10 Commandments there in the first place is a bad idea. Additionally I love some of the Amorphims: > [@](#): > > The Third Aphorism: “Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.” ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/22 "2008-11-12T04:54:52Z")
Question is, is this one of the Elk/DeMille Ten Commandments monuments that were put up to advertise the movie? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/23 "2008-11-12T04:57:07Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Question is, is this one of the Elk/DeMille Ten Commandments monuments that were put up to advertise the movie? Nope, according to the article it was put up in '71 but a fraternal organization. ---
**Author:** ![Subway\_Prophet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Subway\_Prophet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subway_Prophet)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/24 "2008-11-12T13:09:41Z")
I’m ready to change my mind on the issue, based on two things I heard on NPR this morning. I’m still looking for cites on the web, and I’m not ruling out the possibility that I mis-heard the story. One, the city’s argument includes the statement - explicitly made - that governments have a right to establish expression of their own and expect to have that expression protected via the First Amendment. This is practically the definition of governmental oppression. It’s such a vacuous argument that I’m surprised it got as far as the Supreme Court. Their argument would actually hold water if it was based on historic and secular notions, but to claim that governments need a fair voice too is frightening. Two, the city’s attorney is a disciple of Pat Robertson. It seems that Mormon-bashing for sport is fine and dandy until there’s money to be made representing them. (Third, Sekulow godwinized himself early, by comparing the situation to erecting a statue of Hitler at a Holocaust memorial. Ironic analogies, anyone?) Screw these guys. They’ve made their bed, they can sleep in it now. ---
**Author:** ![Reloy3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c68b51/32.png) [@Reloy3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reloy3)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/25 "2008-11-12T15:40:43Z")
Using this quote: > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I side with Pleasant Grove. Based on that summaru of Summun’s case, it seems to me that any band of freaks would be allowed to demand a monument in any park, at any time. It could easily lead to the ruin of parks. to address the basic repeated issue brought up in this thread that Summun’s (who are not a bunch of freaks, I know some of them and they are a very nice and reasonable people with some minority religious views) position would lead to very unpopular positions, I bring you [http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/11/12/homepage\_lead/71101f4e075e0b40872574ff0007fc50.txt](http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/11/12/homepage_lead/71101f4e075e0b40872574ff0007fc50.txt) In summary, Casper, Wyoming has filed an amicus brief in this case because Fred Phelps is trying to use this case to force Casper to put up a monument that says “Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12,1998, in Defiance of God’s Warning ‘thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.’ Leviticus 18:22.” ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/26 "2008-11-12T16:46:16Z")
Let’s just put the giant, granite, ten commandments monument on top of Fred Phelps. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/27 "2008-11-12T18:22:07Z")
> [@Reloy3](#): > > to address the basic repeated issue brought up in this thread that Summun’s (who are not a bunch of freaks, I know some of them and they are a very nice and reasonable people with some minority religious views) position would lead to very unpopular positions, I bring you [http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/11/12/homepage\_lead/71101f4e075e0b40872574ff0007fc50.txt](http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/11/12/homepage_lead/71101f4e075e0b40872574ff0007fc50.txt) > > In summary, Casper, Wyoming has filed an amicus brief in this case because Fred Phelps is trying to use this case to force Casper to put up a monument that says “Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12,1998, in Defiance of God’s Warning ‘thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.’ Leviticus 18:22.” To clarify my first post, I was not trying to label Summum as freaks. I was saying that if their argument was accepted, then groups that are legitimately freaks-- such as Phelps and his crew–would have a weapon by which to harass states and cities all over the country. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/28 "2008-11-12T19:42:24Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > To clarify my first post, I was not trying to label Summum as freaks. I was saying that if their argument was accepted, then groups that are legitimately freaks-- such as Phelps and his crew–would have a weapon by which to harass states and cities all over the country. This is only true of states, cities, and other government entities that accept and display items given to them by private groups, religious or otherwise. I’m not sure that it would apply to items purchased by governments and subsequently displayed. It would be hard to make a case that the government had to purchase every monument or memorial that was offered for sale. It’s a sticky case, no doubt. Hopefully we’ll have some more info on what the SCOTUS asked and talked about soon. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/29 "2008-11-12T23:28:02Z")
> [@Subway\_Prophet](#): > > I’m going to stick my neck out as a non-atheist here, but I don’t see what the big deal is. The park isn’t overtly a shrine for state-sponsored religion, but a recognition of the founders of the city who happened to be driven by religious documents. As the Summum people didn’t organize until the mid-70s, and the city of Pleasant Grove was incorporate in the mid 1850s, it’s safe to assume that the Summum group wasn’t part of that event. The monument in question has nothing to do with the founding fathers of the city of Pleasant Grove; as the article linked to in the OP notes, the monument was placed by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971. > [@](#): > > Removing the existing ten commandments sculpture is silly. It’s like asking to remove the statues of Mohammad and Justice from the SCOTUS building. These weren’t placed there as an official governmental endorsement of Islam and (what? dunno) ancient Greek religions, but as a symbolic reminder of various historic influences to our modern notions of law. [Straight from the Eagles’ mouths](http://www.foe.com/about-us/ten-commandments.aspx), it sounds like the FOE’s campaign of putting up Ten Commandments monuments was a fairly standard evangelistic campaign of trying to get people to “get right with God”. If the Fraternal Order of Eagles thinks stumbling across the Ten Commandments in a public place is likely to change people’s lives, they are welcome to buy (or seek donations of) small plots of land in various communities across America to put up their monuments on. Or they could just donate their monuments to churches, most of which have perfectly serviceable front lawns. If they insist on trying to put their monuments in public parks, which belong to the whole community, they are opening the door for Summum and the Secular Humanists and the Wiccans and the Saucerians and the Scientologists and Fred Phelps to all “donate” their messages, affirmations, and philosophical statements for display in public parks as well. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/30 "2008-11-12T23:36:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Summum teaches that when Moses first went to Mount Sinai, he received stone tablets from God that were inscribed with these principles. Summum believes that because the Israelites could not comprehend the Seven Aphorisms, Moses destroyed the tablets and went to Mount Sinai a second time. According to Summum, Moses then returned to the people with clearer, more accessible rules now known as the Ten Commandments. “The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen… [one of the three tablets falls and shatters] …Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/31 "2008-11-13T00:14:01Z")
I found [this article](http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=dd674d71-9762-4e86-b293-7dda4f1c1426). It seems there was quite a lively bit of Q&A. I get the feeling that the SCOTUS will deny Summum, but I’m _very_ curious how they will twist and turn and dodge and weave to try and justify the decision. The article notes that a decision is expected by next summer. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/32 "2008-11-13T01:25:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > To clarify my first post, I was not trying to label Summum as freaks. I was saying that if their argument was accepted, then groups that are legitimately freaks-- such as Phelps and his crew–would have a weapon by which to harass states and cities all over the country. What legal test do you propose to differentiate between “bands of freaks” and legitimate religious organizations? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/33 "2008-11-13T03:20:33Z")
cnn article about today’s arguments > **[Supreme Court hears Utah park monument case - CNN.com](https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/supreme.court/index.html?eref=rss_latest)** > > The Supreme Court wrestled on Wednesday with how to handle a small religious group's effort to erect a granite monument in a Utah park, next to an existing Ten Commandments display, in a free-speech case involving competing faiths, politics and... and [an article from slate.com](http://www.slate.com/id/2204465/) > [@slate.com](#): > > Summum isn’t before the court as a religion case. It was brought as a free speech case, and, as Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice learns about three minutes into oral argument this morning, if he wins this case as a result of the court’s free speech jurisprudence, he will be back in five years to lose it under the court’s religion doctrine. The more zealously the city claims ownership of its Ten Commandments monument, the more it looks to be promoting religion in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. > > Chief Justice John Roberts puts it to him this way: “You’re really just picking your poison. The more you say that the monument is ‘government speech’ to get out of the Free Speech Clause, the more you’re walking into a trap under the Establishment Clause. … What is the government doing supporting the Ten Commandments?” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/34 "2008-11-13T03:22:41Z")
lol I like this line from the [slate.com](http://slate.com) article > [@](#): > > …the current Third Aphorism of Religion Cases: _Government establishment of religion is only impermissible when it freaks out Justice Stephen Breyer_ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/35 "2008-11-13T03:32:18Z")
Curiously, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty seems to understand the issues quite well. > [@](#): > > “Groups are free to design and construct monuments that support their faith and place them on private property,” Hollman said. “However, when the government decides which religious displays to accept and rejects others, it raises questions of fairness and invites suspicion from those who rightly expect government to be neutral in matters of religion.” [cite](http://www.bjconline.org/cgi-bin/2008/11/baptist_joint_committee_statem_1.html) They also were kind enough to post [a summary of this mornings arguments](http://www.bjconline.org/cgi-bin/2008/11/summum_argument_transcript.html) online. There is a link to a .pdf of [the actual transcript](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-665.pdf) as well. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/36 "2008-11-13T04:38:18Z")
So reading through the Slate article leads me to the natural question: why is this being argued as a speech case, rather than a religion case? The hypotheticals Roberts poses > [@](#): > > “You have a Statue of Liberty; do we have to have a statue of despotism? Do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mount Rushmore?” make sense in the context of free speech, but if the discriminating factor is religion, it’s hard to see how it’s anything other than a government endorsement of one particular religion. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236/37 "2008-11-13T04:59:38Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > So reading through the Slate article leads me to the natural question: why is this being argued as a speech case, rather than a religion case? The hypotheticals Roberts poses > > > [@](#): > > > > “You have a Statue of Liberty; do we have to have a statue of despotism? Do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mount Rushmore?” > > make sense in the context of free speech, but if the discriminating factor is religion, it’s hard to see how it’s anything other than a government endorsement of one particular religion. I think they didn’t pursue the Establishment Clause angle because of the court’s decision in [_Van Orden v. Perry_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Orden_v._Perry). The SCOTUS there decided that a 10 Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause because it had both a religious and a secular message (the secular message being that this was one basis for our laws and justice system, therefore it is historical in nature). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pleasant-grove-city-ut-v-summum-public-religious-displays/472236.md?page=1)