Summum and the Establisment Clause

The recent edition of Religion Dispatches includes an interesting discussion of the recent Supreme Court ruline on the Utah-based Summum group and its desire to have a monument placed in a public park. The story, by Bruce Ledewitz, includes the following byline:

Why was a Utah city allowed to prevent a minority religion from erecting a monument next to a monument of the Ten Commandments? The Supreme Court's Summum decision, litigated in the shadow of the Establishment Clause, raises more questions than answers.

After summarizing the case and commenting on it in terms of free speech, Ledewitz then moves to a consideration of Establishment Clause issues. He writes in part:

"But, as Justice Scalia wrote in a concurrence, this free speech case was 'litigated in the shadow' of the Establishment Clause. In general, government is permitted to say anything it likes. But one limit on the doctrine of government speech is that the government may not prefer one religion over another. Pleasant Grove City is not permitted to put up a display of the Ten Commandments while refusing to accept the Seven Aphorisms if its reason for doing so is that the Ten Commandments are true and the Seven Aphorisms are not.

"The underlying uneasiness about the case is that the city might well have been making exactly this judgment. The rejection of the Summum monument had a jury-rigged and ad hoc quality about it. Undoubtedly, if Summum had in fact been centered in the community, the city would have found some other, allegedly neutral, reason for rejecting its monument."

This case that brings together a minority religion and issues of free speech and constitutional issues in a religiously plural society is worth reflecting on further. Those interested in reading this article in a single page format can find it here.

Supreme Court Rules on Summum Case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against Summum, a religious group based in Utah, in a lawsuit involving the city of Pleasant Grove which had been ordered to allow Summum to place a religious display alongside the city’s Ten Commandments monument in a local park.[1] In their ruling, the Supreme Court said that city municipalities can decide what should be allowed in public parks without their being a conflict with the First Amendment. Summum, from a Latin term meaning “the sum total of all creation,”[2] finds its origins in founder Claude Rex Nowell in 1975 who claimed to have encounters with intelligent beings who “work the pathways of spiritual evolution.”[3] Nowell would later change his name to Summum Bonum Amon Ra. Summum philosophy includes seven Principles of creation aimed at helping the individual integrate existence, worship within pyramids, and meditation, all designed to lead to the goal of the religion: “Awakening you to your spirit is what Summum considers to be genuine religion.”[4] The group has also attracted media attention with its incorporation of mummification processes which were introduced in the 1980s.

Notes

[1] “Supreme Court rules against Summum in Ten Commandments Case,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 25, 2008, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11781464.
[2] Jessica Ravitz, “Summum: A glimpse inside,” The Salt Lake Tribune, November 12, 2008, www.sltrib.com/outdoors/ci_8811552, accessed November 13, 2008.
[3] “Welcome to Summum!”, Summum website, www.summum.us/about/welcome.shtml, accessed October 3, 2007.
[4] Ibid.

Summum: Minority Religions, Public Space, and Religious Liberty

Over the last few weeks I've heard news broadcasts about a minority religious group in Salt Lake City that has made national headlines, but until yesterday I had not heard the group's name. Yesterday I finally heard the group identified as Summum, a group readers may never have heard of before. I only became aware of this group in November of last year through Gordon Melton. There is very little that has been written academicaly about this group, and this fact, coupled with the current legal issues the group is involved in, make it an item of great interest.

As Summum's website describes the group:

"In the fall of 1975, Claude "Corky" Rex Nowell (Founder) began to have a series of encounters with highly intelligent beings who he now refers to as the Summa Individuals. He describes them as beings who untiringly work the pathways of spiritual evolution, and who were referred to as the "Neters" in the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. During his encounters, he received instructions concerning the underlying principles (Laws of Nature) which establish and maintain the universe. During these same encounters, the Summa Individuals would change his name to:

(Aman)
(Amen)
(Amin)
Summum Bonum (Amon) Ra
(Amun)

Soon after his initial experience, Corky founded a non-profit organization, giving it the name "Summum," a Latin term meaning "the sum total of all creation." The principles introduced to him were described as a "neverending story" and form the foundation for the philosophy of Summum. They are nothing new and have always existed. As an eternal work, these principles were presented to Corky who in 1980, would legally change his name to Summum Bonum Amon Ra for governmental purposes and to reflect his spiritual path. He generally goes by Corky Ra."

Summum has made national headlines through a legal challenge currently before the Supreme Court. As the Salt Lake Tribune has described it, the Court "agreed to hear an appeal from the city of Pleasant Grove, which wants to block Summum from displaying its own monument beside the Ten Commandments in a municipal park. That monument, if erected, would include Summum's seven guiding principles."

This case involving issues of religious freedoms in the public square in relation to a minority religion is one to watch, with commentators suggesting that the ruling will be significant, and set precedent for similar issues related to public religious displays. The Supreme Court will likely rule on this case in the spring.