In a small town in Utah, a proposed statue is causing a lot of controversy.The town of Pleasant Grove boasts a public park where various statues and monuments to its pioneer heritage are displayed. The park contains several monuments with religious themes, such as a pair of large stone tablets bearing the Ten Commandments.For once, the commandments aren’t the statues causing the controversy.The debate stems from a lawsuit filed by the religious group Summum, a small sect of quasi-Christian believers. The group wants to place a monument to the “Seven Aphorisms,” important philosophical truths the members believe were revealed to Moses in addition to the Ten Commandments. Their request was denied by the city, and now Summum has filed suit to have the statue placed over the city’s objections.The Aphorisms represent the philosophical tenets that radically separate the group from mainstream Christianity and mainstream religion in general.  For example, “Summum is mind, thought; The universe is a mental creation.”  “As above, so below; as below, so above.”  “Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels.”In short, not the kind of thing your average Joe wants to see in a statue park.The issue is whether or not Joe should determine who puts what in a statue park at all.Summum’s lawyers are claiming by preventing the sect from putting up its statue, the government is restricting their free speech. Because many of the statues — including the Ten Commandments — were donated by private groups, the city should not discriminate on what groups it accepts.The city’s lawyers argue allowing the esoteric group to put its statue up will open the door for any kind of group to put up members’ statues, no matter how unsavory that group and its goals may be.The city argues if anybody was allowed to put up whatever they wanted, terrorists could theoretically establish a monument commemorating Sept. 11. They argue that “accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny.” A decision in Summum’s favor would force cities across the nation to either take down their statues or allow statues from anyone.They also argue the statues were put in the park not for their religious, but for their historical significance. The founders of the city were largely motivated to move to the city because of religious reasons, so it only makes sense that a monument in their memory bear witness to it.So far the courts have ruled narrowly in favor of Summum; the Supreme Court has decided it will hear the case.The issues the Court must address are complex. The basic argument of the city does have validity. It makes sense that the city should be able to censor what is allowed in public property – pornographic or anarchic monuments, to name a few. But who should be able to draw the line? Especially when it comes to religion, asking government to determine who should be allowed to erect monuments in public places reeks of government establishment of religion.  But at some point, government must draw the line. Practical concerns have to be factored in — in a public place, not just anybody should be allowed to put up whatever they want, whether it be politically, religiously or otherwise motivated.  The existing monuments are valuable and part of the city’s heritage.The Summumians have every right to believe in their Seven Aphorisms — they just don’t have the right to build statues of them in public parks.—-Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]