Who’s gonna be this Court’s Potter Stewart?

Posted by MB on 11 November 02008 @ 1pm

Says the Summum website:

“Just prior to meditation, one drinks a small amount of nectar, about one to two ounces. The alcohol in the nectar acts as a vehicle for transporting the concepts that are stored as a form of energy or resonation within the liquid. Once the alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream, the blood carries it across the blood-brain barrier. There within the brain, the resonations are released exposing you to the concepts that are held within. The effects of the energies are first experienced at a sub-conscious level, then ultimately surface to the conscious. Over time and through continued use, the nectars bring about a change in your perception.”

Huh.

Posted by Jackson Landers on 11 November 02008 @ 3pm

The only legitimate argument I can think of would mirror the case of Van Orden v. Perry, where the Ten Commandments were near the Texas capitol, but that was part of a larger historical display. The city would have to make the argument that out of the numerous attributes the monument has, they are only recognizing the historical impact, and not the religious views.

Then again, as the argument is heading towards free-speech issues, who knows. I’m not sure I would group monuments with speeches or pamphlets, as the issue of permanence is a major distinction. I would avoid a local park if there was a pro-life rally happening that day, but what if there is a pro-life (or more specifically, anti-abortion) monument at the entrance? Do I avoid the park altogether?

I do think the city has a point in this becoming a slippery slope, with the only alternative being to not accept donated items. Whether that is a good policy or not, I’m not of one mind.

Posted by Joe on 11 November 02008 @ 4pm

Jesus Christ. I’m for rendering to Caesar and all but it’s a judeo-christian society (still, sorry) built on values from those religions that have us allowed to far outpace the rest of the world where “sloth and heathen folly bring all your hopes to nought.” WTF is wrong w/ acknoledging the beneficence of this heritage and relegating the Wiccans and the Summums to a less promininet place in the pantheon of US religions?

Posted by Will on 13 November 02008 @ 12am

Besides the Establishment clause in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Nothing. But the Establishment clause is, in the eyes of many, kind of a big deal. And acknowledging that this is a Judeo-Christian society (as opposed to a Summum society, or Hindu society, or a Buddhist society, or any of the myriad of other faith systems practiced in the United States of America) may be fine in the sense that it’s one man’s opinion, but it starts getting dicey when governments establish a special status for one religion over any others.

Incidentally, I’d add that I think it’s unfortunate that you decided to focus on the nature of Summum (and Wicca) instead of the constitutional question at hand. Zoroastrianism is the oldest existent monotheistic religion in the world, and is regarded as a prototype for the three largest mainstream monotheistic religions today (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). What if Zoroastrians had lobbied to have a bust of Zarathustra erected next to the ten commandments instead of these Summum folks? A question like that would turn on the same set of legal principles, but the age of the belief system and its relation to Christianity would severely impact the foundations of your criticisms.

Posted by Sam on 13 November 02008 @ 1am

Sam has a good point, in fact I was going to point out the rather obvious influences of Buddhism and other Indian faiths and philosophies on Alexander’s Greeks that was in turn spread throughout the Hellenistic world about the same time as some of the Judeo-Christian ideals were being formed.

A rather large portion of what Jesus of Nazareth was teaching bears remarkable similarity to the humanism inherent in early Buddhism. So can I put my Buddhist teachings up on public land too?

What an entertaining circus.

Posted by Scott Nolan on 13 November 02008 @ 7am

All of you except Will are off the Fox News Christmas card list.

Posted by MB on 13 November 02008 @ 8am

WTF is wrong w/ acknoledging the beneficence of this heritage and relegating the Wiccans and the Summums to a less promininet place in the pantheon of US religions?

Well, if we can successfully place Judeo-Christian religions at the same level as Summum, or Pastafarianism, or Celestial Teapot-ism (and, really, what’s the difference?) then we’re one step closer to the total marginalizaton of religion in general, which is viewed by many as a worth aim.

Ten Commandments monuments, on the other hand, are an obvious slippery slope leading directly to fundamentalist theonomy. (I’ve seen a chart showing a line sloping downward fromm the ten commandments to fundamentalist theonomy, so this is true.)

Posted by Jon on 13 November 02008 @ 10am

Sam: Nice try, but the claim is under the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment, not the establishment clause. The 10th Circuit called the monument private speech; the issue is if the monument is private or gov’t speech. They’re butting up against the establishment clause if it’s gov’t speech, but the petitioners did not make an establishment clause claim (or due process.). There was originally an establishment clause claim under Utah’s constitution, but that was waived at the lower court. I haven’t finished reading the transcripts yet or the briefs, but the main concern from petitioner’s oral argument thus far is the fact that the petitioners did not make an establishment clause claim, but the court keeps pushing against it. The petitioner is actually making some pretty interesting arguments about ownership and control, from a property law perspective, about why this is government speech. Pretty interesting stuff, but not establishment clause.

Posted by Genevieve on 13 November 02008 @ 10am

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why it pays to go to law school and listen….

I kid, Genevieve. ;)

Posted by Mark Brooks on 13 November 02008 @ 11am

Hey, someone has to represent Blackacre… ;)

Posted by Genevieve on 13 November 02008 @ 2pm

Another part of the reason that this case wouldn’t have been brought as an establishment clause case is because those are notoriously difficult to win, whereas, for the best part of 70 years (since Barnette), free speech has been the go-to route for most successful religious litigants.

Posted by Anthony on 14 November 02008 @ 7pm

If I ever need a lawyer, I’m callin’ Genevieve.

I mean, if i knew how to and all.

Posted by va displaced on 14 November 02008 @ 9pm

“Just prior to meditation, one drinks a small amount of nectar, about one to two ounces. The alcohol in the nectar acts as a vehicle for transporting the concepts that are stored as a form of energy or resonation within the liquid. Once the alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream, the blood carries it across the blood-brain barrier. There within the brain, the resonations are released exposing you to the concepts that are held within. The effects of the energies are first experienced at a sub-conscious level, then ultimately surface to the conscious. Over time and through continued use, the nectars bring about a change in your perception.”

This bears a remarkable similarity to MY plans for the evening. Except that my intentions are secular; well, they are unless you consider whiskey and country music to be a Religion…

Posted by james on 19 November 02008 @ 7pm

Finally, a coreligionist!

Posted by MB on 19 November 02008 @ 7pm