Posted on 04/04/2008 1:56:11 PM PDT by NYer
Washington DC, Apr 4, 2008 / 06:40 am (CNA).- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case in its next term to decide whether a Utah city must allow a monument to be installed in a public park by a New Age group that promotes pyramids, mummification, and sexual ecstasy, Cybercast News Service reports.
This week Supreme Court justices agreed to hear a case involving a Salt Lake City-based religion called Summum, whose founder claims to have been visited by highly intelligent beings. The group, arguing on First Amendment grounds, has sought to erect a monument to its Seven Aphorisms alongside a monument to the Ten Commandments in a public park in Pleasant Grove, Utah.
Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld a lower court decision forcing the city to permit Summum adherents to install their monument.
Brian Barnard, the Salt Lake City attorney representing Summum, said he expects the high court to uphold the decision.
"It's a matter of simple fairness," Barnard said to Cybercast News Service. "If you allow one group to do it, you've got to allow every group to do it."
Summum, according to the IRS, is a religion that is virtually unknown outside of Salt Lake City and certain internet groups.
According to the groups web site, Summum is based on Gnostic Christianity and Egyptian practices. It promotes as a funeral rite a modern form of mummification and advocates sexual ecstasy as a way of knowledge.
The religion was founded in 1975 by a former Mormon named Claude Corky Rex Nowell. Nowell said he received a series of visits from highly intelligent beings, or Summa individuals, who gave him higher knowledge.
Nowell legally changed his name to Summum Bonum Amon Ra. Amon Ra was the ancient Egyptian god of the Sun, while summum bonum is a Latin phrase meaning highest good.
Nowell is usually referred to as Corky Ra.
Summum adherents meet and meditate in a pyramid-shaped temple in Salt Lake City. They manufacture and use a wine-like beverage they call nectar. The group also uses a symbol of a pentagram within a pentagon within a circle, which they call a Divine Logo.
According to Cybercast News, the Seven Aphorisms that the Summum adherents wish to memorialize are: correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythym, cause and effect, gender, and psychokinesis, which the group defines as the idea that the mind is the universe.
The attorney for the city of Pleasant Grove was pleased the appeal would be heard.
"We're delighted that the Supreme Court agreed to take this critical case," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the city.
Sekulow said that the case did not involve the Supreme Courts 2005 decisions on the Ten Commandments. In those cases the justices ruled that officials could allow religious displays on public property so long as the overall presentation was religiously neutral.
"This is not about the Establishment Clause. They have already lost on that," Sekulow told Cybercast News Service. "The issue is the freedom of speech -only, it's really about the government's freedom to speak."
The city of Pleasant Grove will argue that mayhem would result if every city, county, or state is forced to allow alternatives to be set up alongside government-sponsored monuments. The city has considered removing the Ten Commandments monument entirely.
"That's like saying, if you have a Veterans of Foreign Wars monument in a city park, you should have to allow an anti-war group's monument to go up, too," Sekulow said, according to Cybercast News Service.
Sekulow argued that if the court rules in Summums favor, cities with memorials to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will face challenges from racist groups citing the decision as precedent to have their memorials erected alongside those to Dr. King.
I have been visited by “beings” who think that they are “highly intelligent.” Does that count?
The first aphorism: Some judges can be idiots, but I repeat myself.
(With a tip of the hat to Mr. Clemmons.)
Pfft... everyone knows that Lt. Col. Jack O'Neil kicked Ra's @ss years ago.
My own thought is that next they will want to sex with every government sponsored monument. Well in my opinion that would be bizarre and only legal in Denmark.
Correction: That is have sex with.
The basic problem with this controversy, in my opinion, is that state lawmakers have never made tax laws that compliment our basic freedoms.
For example, a comparable problem with Pleasant Grove's complaint about the Summum request is that, up to the late 1830's, it was up to individual communities to decide what religious beliefs, for instance, were taught in the local schools under the protection of the now-wrongly-ignored 10th A. power to address religious issues. And why shouldn't local public school districts have the option of teaching only those faiths that are represented by local taxpayers?
In other words, I find it reasonable that a given community shouldn't be obligated to share its resources with the free speech requests, for example, of people outside their local tax base; roughly analogous to freedom of the press for those who own a press.
Regarding this Summum group, however, given that their tax dollars are helping to pay for the maintenance, upkeep, etc., of the site in question, and I don't know the details, I would be inclined to say that they should be able to manage an area at the site in question, perhaps an area proportional to their contribution to the local taxes. I'm basically trying to resolve tax-related concerns about our basic freedoms that should have been properly addressed by state lawmakers long ago.
Again, state tax laws don't adequately reflect our 1st A. freedoms, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.