Supreme Court Puts Kabosh on Vibration Monument

| Wed Feb. 25, 2009 8:43 AM PST

Bad news this morning for Summum, the Utah religious group famous for its mummification practices. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rejected the group's arguments that the First Amendment required the city of Pleasant Grove to install a Summum monument displaying its "Seven Aphorisms" (Number 3: Vibration) in a public park. Summum had argued that because the city had accepted a Ten Commandments monument for the park, rejecting the Summum monument violated the group's free speech rights. A lower federal court had agreed with the Summum, but the justices in Washington were clearly swayed by arguments that a favorable ruling for Summum would open the door to a "parade of horrors" in public space everywhere.

The Summum clearly had a sympathetic case, especially to stalwart believers in the separation of church and state. But they weren't helped by the very real example of Reverend Fred Phelps, the infamous head of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Phelps, who runs www.godhatesfags.com, wants to erect a public monument in Casper, Wyoming depicting Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered in 1998. The caption would read, "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.'" If the Summum had prevailed, Phelps might have, too. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that picking and choosing monuments for a public park was not the same thing as deciding who can and can't speak in a public place, as Summum had argued. Alito said "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" requires a different analysis.

My home state of Utah no doubt breathed a sigh of relief at the news, as Summum has spent years tormenting city officials across the state with its proposed monuments, largely as an effort to get rid of the many Ten Commandments monuments in public parks. Today's decision finally puts an end to the campaign, which really is too bad. As a journalist, you always have to root for the story, and this one, where a group that mummifies pets goes up against elected officials who are mostly members of a faith that once practiced polygamy, is pretty good.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stephanie Mencimer is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Why is the Top Ten List allowed then?

The bottom line is: have they ruled that the Ten Commandments would also open the door to a "parade of horrors"? They say the Summum case would have, and obviously the Summum case was a result of the Ten Commandments monumet, so therefore by transitive property the Ten Commandments is just as culpable as the Summum monument. Of course, no majority-Christian court will ever rule that way.

Isn't this a clear case of

Isn't this a clear case of government establishing religion, i.e. favoring one religious monument over another? Isn't that clearly unconstitutional?

Yes, it is. Unfortunately,

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, the reason the Summum case was a free speech one and not an establishment clause case is that decades ago, the 10th Circuit court of appeals that covers Salt Lake declared 10 Commandments monuments secular and thus, they can never be considered a religious display for the purpose of a legal challenge. that ruling is basically the law of the land in the land of Zion, until the Supreme Court finally overturns it, which it probably won't because it has also held that these monuments are mostly ok on government property if they've been there along time (like the set on the grounds of the Texas state capitol). Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has written some nice stuff about the court's crazy Ten Commandments jurisprudence..

The city could of course

The city could of course simply sell the park to a private entity and be done with it.

This ruling is from the top court in the land?

These knuckleheads on the bench need a few constitutional refresher courses

Insulting

As far as I know any parade that Christianity has been involved in has been horrify. This is clearly a demonstration of the nation favoring a particular religion. Clearly the ruling should mean that the Ten Commandments need to be removed. No one can make the case anymore that they are a secular representation of basic morality.

I wanted to note that the

I wanted to note that the case in front of the Supreme Court was made purely on a free speech basis and not on an establishment clause basis. So, unfortunately, the Supreme Court was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument itself, but rather whether or not the rejection of the Summum monument was suppression of free speech. With that in mind, the court's ruling was the only logical outcome (and that is reflected in the unanimity of the ruling). But now the courts need to hear the establishment clause argument against having those Ten Commandments monuments at all.

The Supreme Court went on to

tagged as: 
The Supreme Court went on to say that the park was a government owned thing and that displays were government statements and that this case was about free speech. Now that makes government making a religious statement and I think that that is a flagrant violation of the constitution.

The chances that a 10-C

The chances that a 10-C monument has ever inspired a passer-by to suddenly observe one of the C's -- or even understand what it's about -- must be nil. So what is this all about?

Although I do agree with

Although I do agree with others what one person said explains it all: "the Summum case was a free speech one and not an establishment clause case". Thus they can't make judgments on matters NOT specifically brought before them. Makes sense. However I do agree that if this was brought to the SCOTUS under the specific circumstance, then the 10C commandments should not be allowed in any government establishment.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.