Supreme Court Rules Against Summum Religious Group

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a Utah city, Pleasant Grove, could not be forced to display a monument in their local city park that was dedicated to the religious beliefs of a little-known religious group. 

On November 12, 2008, the Justices wrestled with several First Amendment issues in the lawsuit over Pleasant Grove’s decision to reject a monument from Summum, a Salt Lake City based religious group that follows tenets of Gnostic Christianity and ancient Egyptian teachings, including mummification.  The religious group argued that Pleasant Grove should be forced to remove existing monuments, including one of the Ten Commandments, from its parks, or, be forced to accept all donated monuments depending on the outcome of a Utah free-speech case heard on November 12, 2008, by the US Supreme Court. 

In 1971, Pleasant Grove accepted a Ten Commandments monument built by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and after September 11, 2001, the city allowed the Boy Scouts of America to build a monument to the firefighters and police officers who responded to the terrorist attacks.  However, in 2003, Summum was denied an attempt to donate a monument bearing the church’s Seven Aphorisms, a set of principles that are central to the Summum religion.

In 2005, a small religious organization known as Summum filed a lawsuit against Pleasant Grove City, Utah when the City refused to erect a monument containing their beliefs which are known as the “the Seven Aphorisms of Summum.”   The City had previously accepted eleven privately donated monuments, including a display of the Ten Commandments, but refused to erect the Summum monument because it did not directly relate to the history of the city.  The religious group alleged that the City’s refusal was a violation of their free speech rights because the city had accepted a Ten Commandments monument but rejected their proposed Seven Aphorisms monument. The Supreme Court disagreed!           

The Supreme Court held that the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech and the government has control over the message it conveys.  Thus, the City is entitled to determine what type of message it intends to communicate to the public through the placement of monuments in the City park.  The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Alito, noted that if the City were forced to accept every privately donated monument without regard to the message it conveyed, the park would have to choose to either “’brace themselves for an influx of clutter’ or face the pressure to remove longstanding and cherished monuments.”

If Pleasant Grove was required to either remove all existing monuments or permit the display of every monument that is donated, city governments across America would lose the ability to make decisions as to what message it wishes to portray.  Pleasant Grove is simply recognizing the historical significance of the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our laws and the sacrifice made by civil servants on September 11, 2001.   We are a Christian nation and our government should not be forced into removing all religiously based monuments respecting our Judeo Christian heritage just to avoid displaying all donated monuments regardless of their message or relevance.  The Supreme Court’s ruling respects both our nation’s heritage and Pleasant Grove’s ability to choose what monuments it displays. 

 This information is provided by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a non-profit religious law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty in the courts!  To help us in our ongoing battle for religious freedom, click here to donate to Advocates.