Home » Mind & Soul » Humanism » Commandments, Aphorisms, and Affirmations: Should Government Property Become a Public Forum or a Religion-Free Zone?

Commandments, Aphorisms, and Affirmations: Should Government Property Become a Public Forum or a Religion-Free Zone?

© Lynne H. Schultz

That is the question that Ogden, Utah is currently facing due to a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Ogden may not ban the Seven Aphorisms of Summum from taking a place right next to the Ten Commandments on the lawn of a city municipal building in the town square. The Court ruled, "The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment compels the City of Ogden to treat with equal dignity speech from divergent religious perspectives."

Summum is a UFO-oriented religious group that claims 250,000 followers. It's key tenets are the Seven Aphorisms, some of which include, "Creation manifests when balance is perfected between the opposites, higher Law against lower laws, the Creation becomes divine"; "As above, so below; as below, so above"; and "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."

In an incredible display of hypocrisy, the city tried to argue that displaying the Seven Aphorisms would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment! Alone it certainly would, just as the Ten Commandments posted alone was an example of a similar violation. The 10th Circuit partially agreed with the city's argument, but noted that it should have accepted the proposed monument out of "concern for equal access" and that they were "persuaded that a reasonable observer would...note the fact that the lawn of the municipal building constituted a diverse array of monuments, some from a secular and some from a sectarian perspective..." Whether both should be removed is a more puzzling question, which I'll discuss later.

Municipal attorneys also tried to argue that the Ten Commandments display, which was a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles, was not the speech of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, but the city's own speech! How can the Ten Commandments display not be a violation of the establishment clause when the government establishes its contents of official government speech, rather than private? They tried to argue that since the Seven Aphorisms were private speech, they should not be allowed on government property.

Of course, what Christian fundamentalists really want is for the government to favor their religion by displaying the Ten Commandments and no other point of view. The reaction of Ogden's Mayor shows this to be true. Mayer Matthew Godfrey told the Deseret News that Ogden is determined to appeal the court's decision. The newspaper also reported that Ogden might choose to remove the Ten Commandments, rather than giving equal space to the Seven Aphorisms.

What does this mean for Humanists? Although most Humanists (including myself) and other church-state separationists might prefer that the government not display any religious speech on public property, the possibility of an open forum is intriguing. At the very least, the 10th Circuit should be commended for not letting Ogden get away with preferential treatment of one religion or group of religions over another. It also opens the door to the possibility of displaying the Humanist Affirmations, whether in original form or my children's version, next to the Ten Commandments, Seven Aphorisms, and other documents on public property. Maybe that would be a good legal strategy for persuading local governments to remove the Ten Commandments from public property. On the other hand, if this strategy "fails" and we get to put the Humanist Affirmations right next to the Commandments and/or Aphorisms maybe that wouldn't be such a bad outcome. It sounds like a win-win situation for Humanists.