The 7 Aphorisms

Pleasant Grove has been in the national news this week due to a case pitting the city vs. a religious group. The group, Summum, asked the city to display a monument with the 7 Aphorisms on it--these were apparently on the 1st tablet Moses received from Jehovah--but the city declined. The issue deals with religious freedom, government speech, and the intermingling of the two. Pleasant Grove's Pioneer Park has a monument with the 10 Commandments on it, and it also has a stone from the original Nauvoo Temple. Pleasant Grove is claiming that because the city accepted the monument and chose to display it, the monument is government speech and therefore Pioneer Park is not a public forum. If this is the case, then the argument is that Pleasant Grove is endorsing one religion over another, violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If it isn't government speech, then the park is a public forum, meaning the city can't deny Summum's 7 Aphorisms from being displayed. Pleasant Grove claims they chose to deny Summum because they display artifacts that have links to the city's history and heritage--something Summum can't claim. That defense still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the city has violated the Establishment Clause. Some would argue that it is impossible for the 10 Commandments in the park to be considered government speech, because Pleasant Grove obviously didn't make up the 10 Commandments--but this fails to absolve Pleasant Grove because once again, that makes the park a public forum. The current Supreme Court generally splits down the middle with Justice Kennedy acting as the tie-breaker, so it will come down to how he views this. I guarantee that Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will back Pleasant Grove, and that Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens will support Summum. A decision isn't expected for at least a couple of months, but the court's behavior on issues surrounding religion is somewhat predictable--they could prove me very wrong, but this is my prediction. I believe the city should be allowed to determine what to display in the park, but I also believe they shouldn't be allowed to display such overtly religious artifacts if they want to have that right. Certainly Pleasant Grove is primarily Mormon--and Christian--but there are also members of the community that fall outside these groups. By accepting one religious faith's monument, while rejecting another, the city is creating in-groups and out-groups. They are saying that Christianity is more valid and accepted than other faiths--whether they defend it with other excuses like heritage or not--and doing so clearly violates the Establishment Clause. The citizens of Pleasant Grove could also push the city to sale the park to private donors, and those donors could then display whatever religious artifacts they choose. Such a move would likely end up in court, but it would be a possible loop-hole. They could put a referendum on the next ballot, and then have an open bidding process if the citizens approve the sale--they would just have to hope that someone in a minority group didn't outbid everyone else. Anyway, it's an interesting issue that will certainly be referred to in other cases regarding religion and government.