A religious group based on ancient Egyptian traditions, including mummification, will meet Pleasant Grove City at the United States Supreme Court next month. The court will determine if the religious group can erect a monument of their beliefs next to a Ten Commandments monument already existing in Pleasant Grove.

The central question is whether the case is an issue of government or individual speech and therefore a first amendment right.

"The simple issue is: when someone donates a monument does it become government speech once it's placed on government property," Pleasant Grove City Attorney Christine Petersen said. "If it remains private speech, it becomes a freedom of speech issue. Summum says that it's still the donator speaking."

In August 2003, the religious organization Summum, based in Salt Lake City, approached Pleasant Grove with its desire to erect a monument to its seven aphorisms - psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect and gender - in Pioneer Heritage Park next to a Ten Commandments monument.

The city declined on the basis that the monument was not appropriate for the park.

"It has to do with the fact that we have established a pioneer park and everything there is related to Utah's pioneer heritage or the patriotic heritage of Utah," Petersen said. "It all has been donated by a historic organization or one with significant ties to the community. The Summum group has no connection to Pleasant Grove whatsoever."

Summum is a religious organization founded in 1975 after an administrative manager for a large Salt Lake City supply company claimed to have received several visits from "advanced living beings" who revealed principles of creation to him including the seven aphorisms.

According to Summum's Web site, the seven aphorisms were contained in the first tablets given to Moses at Mount Sinai, but were destroyed because the people were not capable of understanding them.

After the city declined a second request from Summum, the religious group took the case to court, citing a violation of free speech.

"The city's position is kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If it's the city's speech, then they're favoring one religious belief over another," Summum attorney Brian Barnard said. "If it's a freedom of speech issue, then they're denying Summum's right to freedom of speech."

Summum sought a preliminary injunction, which would allow them to erect the monument throughout the course of the lawsuit, which was denied.

In August 2007, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, prompting the city of Pleasant Grove to appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the preliminary injunction granted to Summum.

"The reason this is so important is that it has ramifications for every community government across America," Petersen said. "If the 10th Circuit's decision is upheld, there's a good possibility government agencies will no longer accept permanent plaques and monuments at all. There have been entities that were in the process of erecting new monuments and those activities have been put on hold until after this decision."

Meanwhile, Barnard says, "It doesn't take a religious scholar; it's a simple matter of the golden rule. There is no legitimate reason why they should be able to turn around and say no to somebody."

Copyright Brigham Young University 16 Oct 2008