I'd rather no monuments! Otherwise the Scientologists could put a statute of L Ron Hubbard there too.

I am also fascinated by this case, in part because it raises the issue of how to draw the line between different kinds of religious belief systems. Should the Flying Spaghetti Monster be given equal weight to Summum, if adherents of the FSM request space?

Please pardon the obnoxious pedant in me, but I believe the Summum folks want equal space for their religious "tenets." Tenants could work too, I suppose, but it raised questions about the construction materials they plan to use for their display.

Huh, you'd think Utah would especially been sensitive about protecting the rights of non-canonical religions...

Hey, we ought to get together our Flying Spaghetti Monster monument for their park! It'd be in good company.

adherents simply want equal space for their religious tenants.

Unless you want to establish a faith-themed shantytown, I think the word you want here is "tenets."

A courthouse not too far from home has one of those "10 commandment plaques" that were subject to a lawsuit some years ago.

It really is unfortunate that the ruling was "ah, so what, let it be".

Because I think that having ANOTHER plaque saying
DO WHAT THOU WILT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW
would be really "nice" to have on a courthouse.

I certainly hope that, immediately after the Summum win this lawsuit, someone sues to have all of the religious monuments removed from the public park.

It appears they want their tenets to have tenancy in the park.

Just once I'd love to see a monument placed with the last two lines of the Wiccan Rede:

"In these eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill:
And it harm none, do what ye will."

Of course, fundies and Rethuglicans seem to have an insurmountable problem with the "And it harm none" part.

So I was curious enough to read up on Summum. The interesting thing is that they believe that Moses first delivered the Seven Aphorisms to his followers, but they didn't understand them. So he came back again with the Ten Commandments, which were easier to understand. That's an interesting little twist to the story.

adam rice is being subtle, but the word is "tenets", which means beliefs. "Tenants" are the people subleasing your apartment.

Good luck with that. There has been decades of litigation over the Cross on the Mount Soledad here in La Jolla, and despite losing some times, the supporters of the cross have always been successful. Whether constitutionally or not, SCOTUS decision or not, USA is de-facto a Christian (with a bit of Judaism mixed in) nation, or why else would ambitious politicians find it necessary to change their religious affiliation before running or even thinking about running for higher office?

The court is closed today, due to Veterans Day. They hear arguments tomorrow.

In winter I'm a Buddhist, in summer I'm a nudist. I want a monument to that. The public square would be fine.

I'd like to see a monument there which shows clearly the more obnoxious tenets of the Christian faith. The fundies would love to see it there, and the moderates would hate it because it would expose Christianity for the bloody shop of horrors it really is.

"What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder. What is it the Testament teaches us? —to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine

http://skeptically.org/hhor/id5.html

"Tenets," not "tenants." We're talking religious principles, here, not apartment renters.

Am I right in understanding that the Sumumum are not requesting that the city foot the bill for the materials or construction cost? If that's the case, that's an important thing to underscore. All they want is an equal amount of space to put up the monument on their dime. They dont want your tax dollars.

If this case goes the way I think it ought to, the resulting opinion should join Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah as one of my absolute favorite First Amendment opinions ever.

Huh, you'd think Utah would especially been sensitive about protecting the rights of non-canonical religions...

You're kidding, right? Tell that to the non-mormom settlers who came in a few years after Brigham Young and were massacred by the mormons, who then spread some feathers around to blame it on the Indians.

I lived in Utah in the '70s, it's not exactly what you would call open to diversity.

The Seven Aphorisms in question:

The Principle of Psychokinesis: Summum is mind, thought; the universe is a mental creation.

The Principle of Correspondence: As above, so below; as below, so above.

The Principle of Vibration: Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.

The Principle of Opposition: Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.

The Principle of Rhythm: Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.

The Principle of Cause and Effect: Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.

The Principle of Gender: Everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels

From a fundraising email by Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, the lawyer arguing the "christian" position:

How much honor should we give to the Nazis? How would we like to see a Statue of Tyranny in N.Y. Harbor?

Impossible? No. These are actual, possible outcomes if the ''Summum'' group has its way in the Pleasant Grove case that I will be arguing next week - November 12 - before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Statue of Tyranny? Would that be the George W Bush memorial?

Are the Ten Commandments in the Book of Mormon?

oops, should have been italicized thusly:

How much honor should we give to the Nazis? How would we like to see a Statue of Tyranny in N.Y. Harbor?

Impossible? No. These are actual, possible outcomes if the ''Summum'' group has its way in the Pleasant Grove case that I will be arguing next week - November 12 - before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Considering the firestorm the Mormons have stirred up over their political action campaign with Prop. 8 in California, the more they're confronted with the political realities of supporting their own particular sect over all others the better it will be for all of us.

Also, nice to see Wiccans, Thelemites and Pastafarians so well represented here. ;)

The problem for Jay Sekulow is that freedom, as opposed to tyranny, is something that the United States government endorses.

His legal and logical fallacy lies in equating freedom with Christianity. Christianity is not endorsed (well, *should* not be) by the US government.

This won't hold water, even with the current SCOTUS makeup.

Please make sure the park also has:

Atira (the Pawnee Sacred Mother), Buddha, Confucius, Dionysus, Eros, Fafnir (of Fafblog), Gaia, Horus & Isis (in the Egyptian nook), James Joyce (for me only, I guess), Kuklikimoku (Polynesian war-god, and you better mind your manners), Loki, Mahavira (the Jain), Nanak (the Sikh), Odin, Pan, Quetzalcoatl, Ramakrishna, Shiva (the Destroyer), Taoism, Upanishads, Vishnu, Wachabe (Sioux and Osage black bear god), Xena the Warrior Princess (divinized briefly in the fourth or fifth season, I believe, so there just might be a challenge), Yeng-Wang-Yeh (Lord of Death & judge of souls, do not screw around with this guy), Zoroaster...

...and we should not forget Zeus...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . . "

I've never understood how people construe this to mean that if one religion is represented, then all must be (if somebody bothers to complain). I think this says that none should be. The government is not to promote religion. It doesn't say "a religion," is says "religion."

So it says, in this case, with a little help from the Fourteenth, and some Supreme Court decisions, "Mr. Utah, tear down this Ten Commandments monument." Period.

If every frickin' religion in the country is free to put up a monument in our public parks, we won't have any parks left. Instead of being argued on free speech grounds, this case should be argued on establishment clause grounds, to remove the 10 Compulsions monument. Good discussion at AU.

P.S.- Apparently those Summum folks have never heard of bdelloid rotifers.

"Are the Ten Commandments in the Book of Mormon?"

It's been a few years since I read the Book of Mormon, but I don't remember them being in there. They are also not in the New testament. Keep in mind that the Mormons also believe that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are part of their Cannon. Although they do add some additional material to the Hebrew Bible.

I've never understood how people construe this to mean that if one religion is represented, then all must be (if somebody bothers to complain).

The problem seems to be that you don't understand what an "establishment of religion" is.

Its not an establishment of religion if the government permits religious groups, without discrimination, to place messages at their own expense on public property.

It is an establishment if the government prefers, through policy, a particular religion.

It doesn't say "a religion," is says "religion."

Actually, it says "an establishment of religion", which (in historical context) refers to the act by which a government creates a particular state-favored religion.

Hark - you need to brush up on your 18th century language usage. "Establishment" of religion meant the adoption of a state church as was (and continues to be) the practice of many European contries. Allowing some or all religions to install religious displays on public property falls miles short of "establishing" the religion in question. You may prefer the "tear down this monument" policy, but the First Amendment wasn't meant to enact it.

And if this was Atrios, I'd owe a Coke to fostert and cmdicely ...

When conservatives say they support more public endorsement of religion, they mean their religion.

Well, duh. You didn't think these jackasses were acting in good faith, did you?

Oh, dear...now Amy Sullivan is bound to come along and scold me.

I'd like to see a monument to Bokononism.

The rationale for displaying the Ten Commandments is always that our Constitution and laws are somehow based on them. Of course, as US citizens we're free to worship other gods, covet our neighbor's wife [You go ahead. I'm set.], work on Sunday, make idols of ourselves [See: Carrie Underwood], dishonor our parents, say 'goddamnit,' commit adultery, or make graven images, unless they happen to be of a religious nature and are placed on public property.

Let's try this one without religion:

Say, for example, a small town has a park with a monument honoring Vietnam Veterans. There is another group in town that wants to make a monument denigrating Vietnam Veterans.

Does the second group have the right to have their monument displayed on the basis of free speech?

...and we should not forget Zeus...

But you forgot Eris! Hail Eris!

To say nothing of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs...

Does the second group have the right to have their monument displayed on the basis of free speech?

IANAL, but if the city allows citizens to erect monuments on public land at their own expense (as is the case here), then yes.

"As above, so below; as below, so above." What does this mean?

Whoa. For me it means a flashback to the mid-'80s and the Tom Tom Club.

It's been a few years since I read the Book of Mormon, but I don't remember them being in there. They are also not in the New testament. Keep in mind that the Mormons also believe that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are part of their Cannon.

Actually, its a canon (not a "cannon") that includes the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

All interesting comments here.

Shifting to the other (another?) foot, perhaps some clever soul will discover an end run to all this and say "ah-HA!" I can't really describe this Thing in the public squre but I greatly admire the firm upright standard, the outstretched arms, the equally placed nail holes...certainly it falls under the guidelines* as ART.

*locally appointed or elected officials who will interpret taste and eventually draw more frothy mouth attention than the govenor of their state on election day.

I dunno. I agree with free speech and all, but a park does not have infinite space to display monuments whether religious or not. Now, if the public park is allowing other non-religious monuments to be built, it makes sense that saying that the Summum monument should be allowed. If, on the other hand, no new monuments are being built, I see no reason why they should make a special case for this one.

Let's try this one without religion:

That changes the Constitutional character of the issue.

Say, for example, a small town has a park with a monument honoring Vietnam Veterans. There is another group in town that wants to make a monument denigrating Vietnam Veterans.

Does the second group have the right to have their monument displayed on the basis of free speech?

Not as a matter of free speech if the monument (or the decision to allow a particular group to place the monument), however the monument is funded, is an example of "government speech" for which neutrality is not required (which is what the city is arguing in the religious case at hand, too). However, where religion is concerned, there is very little acceptable non-neutral "government speech" that is possible without violating the Establishment Clause.

"Actually, its a canon (not a "cannon")"

I guess all this talk of 'tenants' got me confused. As for the Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, I'm not familiar with them (I'm not a Mormon), but I'll take your word for it. My question about them would be this: are they every bit as bizarre as the Book of Mormon? If so, I'll have to get really stoned and read them.

As for the Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, I'm not familiar with them (I'm not a Mormon), but I'll take your word for it. My question about them would be this: are they every bit as bizarre as the Book of Mormon?

I haven't really read them (or the Book of Mormon) except for essentially random selections, where none of the parts I have read from any of the three seemed much more bizarre than some parts of the OT (or Revelation).

none of the parts I have read from any of the three seemed much more bizarre than some parts of the OT (or Revelation).

The works of H.P. freakin' Lovecraft are not much more bizarre than Revelations.

So why are concerned with shooting tenants with cannons?

You guys lost me somewhere ...

Say, for example, a small town has a park with a monument honoring Vietnam Veterans. There is another group in town that wants to make a monument denigrating Vietnam Veterans.

Nope. More like another group wanting to put a memorial up to a smaller, less well-known war, like the Spanish-American War.

Good troll though.

Wow. I am picturing the new theme park of Utah. Every religion represented! Could become the eighth wonder of the world.

Did they say how big the park is ?

"none of the parts I have read from any of the three seemed much more bizarre than some parts of the OT (or Revelation)."

Religious literature in general tends toward the bizarre, but the Book of Revelation is probably the most bizarre story in all of religious literature. The Book of Mormon has nothing that weird. But it has little that's normal, either. The whole story about Lehi coming to America before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians is pretty damn weird. Overall though, the Book of Mormon is great reading if you aren't taking it literally. It's kind of like a history of Earth in an alternate universe. If you think of it as science fiction, it's fantastic.

In fairness to the Book of Revelation, I don't think it was ever intended to be taken literally. But as an allegory for its time, it's pretty cool.

Dang! Andrew got there first. However, is there anyone out there who would like to organize a committee to solicit designs for a Flying Spaghetti Monster monument? If Summum wins its case I don't see why we Pastafarians can't make an equal claim. We just have to come up with some nifty "aphorisms" of our own...call them "noodle-doodles"?

"noodle-doodles"

Classic! I'm all for it. One them should concern the proper use of garlic.

"As above, so below" is a teaching of the Hermetic school which influenced Renaissance thinkers and can be found as an image on The Magician card of the Tarot.

It's associated with alchemy -- check Jung for details.

Or just take a look at that eyeball on the dollar bill pyramid.

Gurdjieff addressed the issue of "as above, so below" in his work. The movie Meetings With Remarkable Men might be a good place to start.

"Abjure not the garlic to ward off the werewolves".

Christians who want to make the U. S. a Christian nation overlook the possible consequences. Which Christian beliefs will be established under such a plan? Imagine the conflicts that would arise.

Republican and Democrats have much more in common than what separates them, yet look at the hate that characterizes our campaigns. History dictates it is even worse when religions contend. The First Amendment grew out of the history of religious conflict that characterized European and American experience.

The First Amendment's freedom of religion was formulated to protect religion more than to separate religion from government. It would be difficult to prove, but I suspect more misery and harm have come from conflict between Christian sects than from conflict between Christianity and non-Christian religions.

If you think of it as science fiction, it's fantastic. -fostert

Science fiction author, Mormon, and hate-filled bigot Orson Scott Card actually adapted the Book of Mormon to series of sci-fi books called the Homecoming Series.

I read it long before finding out what a ginormous ass he is. I will never, ever read another of his books again. Vote with your dollar!

Gov't is favoring Christianity by allowing the 10 Commandments to be placed on public property. Thus opening up this whole can of worms, which could have been predicted. The answer is not to have any of them. The whole 10 Commandment monument tempest in a teapot is a backdoor way of getting the gov't to favor Christianity and endorse the idea that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the 10 Commandments.

An email was going around the Internet about a Texan who placed some rather large crucifiction art on his property that runs alongside a major highway. That is an all-American expression of free speech using his money and HIS LAND.

I still want a statue of every Hindu god and Goddess, thousands of lifesize statues, especially one of Matsya, the giant fish incarnation of Vishnu, should be the size of a football stadium

How about realistic life-sized statues depicting every sexual position mentioned in the Kama Sutra? That'd be fun. And the cool thing is that the porn industry has plenty of money to fund it.

That should be, "There's no such thing as too much garlic."

Amen, Cookie.

Public park, taxpayer property. I would have figured that kind of thing goes by majority consensus. I'm not sure why religious freedom factors into this particular case. I mean if the city were to deny permission for the church to build their monument on their own property it'd be a hell of an issue but it's a city park they want their chunk of rock to sit in. You couldn't build a non-religiously based sculpture in the middle of the park without public approval could you?