Summum
Summum is a religion and philosophy that began in 1975 as a result of American citizen Claude "Corky" Nowell's claimed encounter with beings he described as "Summa Individuals".
[7] The new derivative work utilized a more modern language and incorporated the new information said to have been presented to Ra by the Summa Individuals.
The basis of the philosophy is the "Grand Principle of Creation" that states, "Nothing and Possibility come in and out of bond infinite times in a finite moment".
[9] According to Summum, devotion and spiritual practice leads to revelatory experience, and that was the basis of the authentic teachings of Jesus.
According to Summum, our mental states dictate our sense of harmony and disharmony, and the resulting experiences become part of our memories that then hold us captive.
A small amount of nectar is consumed prior to meditation, and the alcohol is said to carry the resonations across the blood–brain barrier where they are released in the brain.
[13] Governmental authorities consider the nectars to be wine and required that Summum obtain a winery license in order to make them.
[13][14] Summum practices "Modern Mummification" and "Transference" as a means to guide one's essence to a greater destination following the death of the body.
The lower knowledge was embodied in the more widely known Ten Commandments, while the higher was expressed in what Summum refers to as the "Seven Aphorisms".
[22] According to Summum, when Moses first descended from Mount Sinai, he had with him the higher law inscribed on stone tablets.
[25][26] Christians and town fathers have objected, claiming that the Ten Commandments are of great historic significance to the United States, and as such are not solely a religious statement, whereas the seven aphorisms are a modern philosophy.
Their argument is that the acceptance of a monument is not an instance of a public forum where speakers may not be discriminated against, but rather a form of government speech that does not require neutral viewpoints.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, asserted that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech, which is permissible and not an unconstitutional interference with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
He opined that even long-winded speakers eventually go home with their leaflets and holiday displays are taken down; but permanent monuments endure and are obviously associated with their owners.
