Deseret News | Reader comments: Justices to hear Pleasant Grove tablets case: Top court to decide city's monument dispute

Reader comments
Justices to hear Pleasant Grove tablets case: Top court to decide city's monument dispute

Page:
1
2
Next >

Charles | 5:14 a.m. April 1, 2008

What influence has Summum had in the founding of this country? The Ten Commandments, and its implications of the existence of a supreme being, are universal and dominant in defining moral behavior, the root of law. Displaying the Seven Aphorisms in the public square would be nothing more than an advertisement, akin to displaying the Thirteen Articles of Faith.

Steve | 6:54 a.m. April 1, 2008

This is an attempt to get rid of all public displays of the Ten Commandments.
"In response, Summum said government bodies always have the option of banning display of all privately donated monuments."
Of course they did, that is their actual goal.

liberal larry | 6:54 a.m. April 1, 2008

Thank heaven for Brian Barnard.

Comments continue below

Charles | 8:06 a.m. April 1, 2008

To Liberal Larry: "heaven" was the wrong choice of words. Brian Barnard is making a living by seeking to separate State from God. If you take God out of our country, you take good out, as well.

Re: Brian Barnard | 8:09 a.m. April 1, 2008

yes, I'm sure God would be very pleased with Brian's campaign to remove any reference to God from all public forums.

Sara | 8:23 a.m. April 1, 2008

I'm tired of religious groups assuming everyone in the community thinks as they do. Why do we need constant reminders not to steal and murder. Do the people violating these 10 commandments stop their bad behavior when they see these signs? Let's keep your ideologies in your own head not on public lawns.

Chiming In. | 8:39 a.m. April 1, 2008

Because of the nature of this case before the Supreme Court, and the fact that it so closely approximates a number of cases already ruled on throughout the nation, it was only a matter of time before a non-Christian religious case actually based on the same premise as those early cases would come before the court... and guess what? The courts will ultimately have to rule in favor of Summum, because that's the precedent that is in place.

They're simply playing the same exact card as the Christians have so successfully done, so I guess the fat lady has come home to roost and as the saying goes... "Time to pay the Fat Lady for her song."

What Pleasant Grove should do is determine the most non-visual part of the park to place the monument and surround it with a bunch of high fence-type bushes... as that's something the courts have no jurisdiction over, but is the sole privilege of the park's managers.

James | 8:52 a.m. April 1, 2008

Well said. Constant reminders do little to influence a person's behavior. We fine people or put them in jail as punishment, not tell them they're going to go to hell and then release them. Let religion do its thing, but civic law should remain outside it's influence. By the way, the Ten Commandments are based on much older laws that the Hebrews simply adapted to their own purposes.

more separation | 8:55 a.m. April 1, 2008

To Charles: I think you are a bit confused as to the basic argument, Charles. Understanding that God flows through everything and always will, I am afraid you knowingly or unknowingly are attempting to separate yourself and your group, mistakenly believing you are "closer to God than other people" and the zealots from the far-right are playing you for a chump.

Re: Sara | 8:57 a.m. April 1, 2008

You've missed the point of this entirely. It's not about religious groups trying to impose their standards on others, it's about being able to put a monument with any religious reference whatsoever on public land. If we were to adopt the policy advocated by Summum that government bodies ban the display of all privately donated monuments (which is Summum's goal here), most of the monuments at Gettysburg and every other memorial site would have to be removed.

To Sara | 9:00 a.m. April 1, 2008

While it is true that people should keep their religious ideologies to themselves, it does not change the fact that the country was founded on the 10 commandments. Every courtroom within the Supreme Court in D.C. has the 10 Commandments posted on the wall. As you enter the courthouse, a statue of Moses with the 10 Commandments is on the mantle over the door, with 10 other statues facing him. I've never understood why people look at the 10 Commandments with such disdain. Although they stem from the Christian Holy Bible, they apply to all sects and non-religious people. They promote proper behavior, and create law. I'm not of the Buddhist faith, but I view their laws of conservatism to be good principles to live by. Religious tolerance is something this country greatly needs, and we need to overlook the religious boundaries and accept teachings and principles as just that: moral laws to live by.

elisabeth | 9:08 a.m. April 1, 2008

Interseting that an 80 year-old church deacon of a catholic church was forcibly removed from a mall for wearing a shirt that stated, "4000 troops and 1 million Iraqis dead, ENOUGH."
Who decides who's opinions are valid? Who actually resides as the speech police?

more and more religious zealots | 9:17 a.m. April 1, 2008

The Ten Commandments should be posted in all courtrooms. And the U.S. Constitution should be glued onto Jesus' chest in every church in America.
(just kidding, but we all know there are those zealots out there today that would want this)

Hatuletoh | 9:13 a.m. April 1, 2008

I wonder how the "Supreme Court can change the interpretation of the [First] ammendment"? It's pretty clear: "Congress (nor the enlightened Pleasant Grove city council) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor abridging freedom of speech." So what sort of legal neocon doublethink are the so-called "textualists" like Justice Scalia going to manifest as justification for why public property can be used for the exercise of one type of religion, but not the other? Especially when the type of speech exactly the same?

To Charles @ 8:06, and others: If you feel strongly that religion is a thing of importance then you would actually want to be on the side of Summum in this disbute. A decsion against them would weakend the First Ammendment, the portion of the Constitution that protects the right to worship as you choose, and also prevents the government from endorsing one religion to the detriment of another. Think of it in a more familiar context: it would be illegal to allow Jehovah's Witnesses but prohibit Mormon missionaries to knock on doors in a particular town. Remember 1st Ammendment = religious liberty, not the other way around.

far-right hysterics | 9:33 a.m. April 1, 2008

This is just more far-right hysterics from a group of people afraid of their own shadows.

These people will do ANYTHING to set themselves apart from the rest tryint to convince the world (and themselves) that the demon liberals (aka Democrats) are out to bring the devil into everyone's lives. This is nothing new. Every now and then this sort of thing crops up in history.

What utter, lunatic nonsense!

Easy Call | 9:27 a.m. April 1, 2008

This should be about the easiest judgement the supremes have ever had to make. All they need to do is look at the front of their building as they walk in. Case closed.

James | 9:44 a.m. April 1, 2008

When the first commandment instructs us to have no other gods before Him, exactly which god gets top billing?

Common Sense | 10:11 a.m. April 1, 2008

A local community should be able to decide what monuments to display in their public park without requiring an act of congress. And, no, just because a monument contains a religious reference doesn't mean that every conceivable religion then must be represented.

Middle Ground | 10:14 a.m. April 1, 2008

Hopefully, the U.S Supreme Court will be able to find some middle ground between the so called "religious zealots" and the religious bigots.

Not so complicated | 10:31 a.m. April 1, 2008

The Supreme Court use just use their own building as an example of how to rule.

At the laying of the cornerstone for the U.S. Supreme Court Building on October 13, 1932, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes stated, "The Republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith." A sculpture group by Herman A. McNeil is located above the east entrance that represents great lawgivers, Moses, Confucius, and Solon.

Note: Religious reference, but not every conceivable religion represented.

The Correct Religious History | 11:30 a.m. April 1, 2008

Dear 'To Sara,'

I am of Hebrew decent. The 10 Commandments DO NOT stem from "the Christian Holy Bible," but from the Hebrew Holy Tallmud (our scriptural guidelines for good living).

It would be greatly appreciated by the Hebrew community if 'Christians' would stop hijacking Hebrew history, tradition and even the teachings/scriptures that originated with us and claiming those things as theirs. Christians can take claim and ownership to all the pagan stuff they desire (and have chosen to morph and incorporate as their own) but please, don't take something that predates Christianity by a few thousand years and claiming it as having originated via 'Christian.'

And remember, Jesus Christ was not a Christian, but a Rabbinic Jew of the Hebrew tradition who in his own words came to fulfill law (the Hebrew law that is), not change it (attempt to bring about a totally new system). With the exception of the Bishop of Jerusalem (James), it was the Bishops of the other outlying communities that took Jesus' teachings and examples and by the actions 'men' created a new mystical-based religious movement far removed from its Jewish religious roots.

I'm just saying to not steal - the 8th commandment!

Sick of PC | 12:03 p.m. April 1, 2008

How dare a religious group think that they have the right to post something in a public space? How purely insensitive. Posting of this religious monument does several offensive things: first it recognizes that there is a supreme being. We cannot allow this, because it is insensitive. And as per many supreme court rulings the official religion of our country is Atheism. We need to follow the rulings of our highest courts with greater tenacity. There are several examples of following the command of the government with regard to this, so that we are not completely in the dark. China, Russia, Cuba and North Korea have all given us wonderful examples of how to be officially atheist. It would do us good from following their examples. Secondly it gives us laws that are not upheld by our government. For instance, "Thou Shalt Not commit adultery." How dare someone say that there is law against that. It completely denies us the right to choose how we give our love and to whom. Adultery is everywhere, and we cannot blame it for the declining health of our families and our society. There are other reasons for that, like smoking, pornography and Bush.

We the people .... | 12:04 p.m. April 1, 2008

Let the residents of Pleasant Grove decide what is displayed in THEIR park. Put it to a vote - that's called "democracy". The political action groups in Washington or even the courts should get out of the way and allow the majority rule principle to decide this. Every time something regarding God is displayed in one of our cities the politically correct boo-birds come flying out of the basement and attempt to do everything in their power to remove God from our society. Time for the people of our towns and cities to stand up and be counted.

Fred Vader | 12:36 p.m. April 1, 2008

Just some food for thought....

Reverse the situation to see it a little differently. Say that it is the Summum group that already has its little display in the park and a civic/christian group wanted to display the 10 commandments in the same park. City government favors the Summum group, or simply says we don't want a bunch of different displays crudding up the park.

Would we be asking the Supreme Court to shut out the Christian group? Or would we be saying, "If the Summums can display, so should the Christians"?

A little different take....Say a Mormon group wants to display Cpt. Moroni's Standard of Liberty, but City says "No", don't want to crud up the park. Still support it?

Majority | 12:37 p.m. April 1, 2008

This country was founded on the voice of the people. The majority vote determines the outcome of the elections, and the majority in a community should be the ones to make the determination as to what is considered appropriate/acceptable for their "community".

The Mormon population in Las Vegas does not dictate what businesses and advertising is allowed in that community. Those who live their either accept what has been deemed appropriate by the community, or they find another place to live. When you go there, you know what to expect.

The morals and ethics for this community have been very well established since this place was founded. What gives people the right to believe that a small minority should dictate what is acceptable in our communities.

If you don't like those accepted morals and values, you have your agency - move on! We don't want you here. Don't come in and try to dictate how life should be for the majority. Find a community that matches your personal values. Everyone will be better off and much happier.

Utah residents, get involved in local politics. Elect officials that share your values or our way of life will be lost.

Micah | 12:46 p.m. April 1, 2008

We the People... is good one!!!

Re: Fred Vader | 12:58 p.m. April 1, 2008

Let the local community decide what is appropriate to display in their park. If people are offended by community standards, let them be offended. The Federal Government shouldn't even be involved in making such decisions.

Hatuletoh | 1:01 p.m. April 1, 2008

The intrasigence of some of the posters on this site is really disheartening. The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is not something applied selectively. If one group has a right to posit their message on public property, then another has the right to do the same. It does not matter what the "community" or the "majority" wants. If the majority of citizens in a community wished to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, their little town council would lack the authority to do so because that right is guaranteed to all citizens, no matter what the community thinks of them. The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority. Mostly from the government, but also from the "tyranny of the majority", like many of the short-sighted people on this board. For a place that is populated by a formerly persecuted RELIGIOUS MINORITY, it is absolutely baffling to me that people do not have a better grasp on the importance of the First Amendment.

can't help them | 1:18 p.m. April 1, 2008

One of the biggest mistakes our conservative brothers and sisters make is erroneously thinking that everyone should think and act exactly as THEY do.

If only they might experience the freedom of an open mind instead of the usual constipated "Ours is the only way!" Or the oft-used, "Right is right" nonsense.

And there is really not much you can do for these types.

Re: Hatuletoh | 1:22 p.m. April 1, 2008

What did that RELIGIOUS MINORITY do? They packed up and moved on to where they could create a community that shared their values. Others should do the same.

No one is saying that people should be persecuted, viciously attacked, or dragged from their homes in the middle of the night. In fact, no one's basic rights are being denied. Give everyone the right to voice their opinion through their vote. Let the majority dictate, and have the honor to respect the outcome. If that falls outside of you range of tolerence, move on.

Freedom is being misinterpreted in this country. No where did the founding fathers intend for freedom to mean that the minority should dictate to the majority. The Civil War started because the minority was not willing and honorable enough to accept what was right, as determined by the majority vote.

Fred Vader | 1:29 p.m. April 1, 2008

To Re: Fred Vader:

If this were merely a community issue, I doubt we would be reading about it.

This case involves the First Amendment, which, fortunately, or unfortunately, is an issue that the Federal Government is involved in, and has full jurisdiction over.

Re: Hatuletoh - Ridiculous | 1:32 p.m. April 1, 2008

Your argument sounds reasonable in the abstract, but, RIDICULOUS in practice.

Just because a monument has a religious theme, by your reasoning, if a community accepts even one monument from a private group to display in their park, they must accept ALL monuments that are offered. The tiny park in Pleasant Grove could literally be covered entirely by monuments because the community would have NO RIGHT to reject any of the monuments. When they ran out of space, would the community then be forced to purchase additional land so they could display even more monuments.

To Hotelutah | 1:44 p.m. April 1, 2008

If this country consisted of 90% smokers and 10% non-smokers, the Government would not be banning smoking in public places. No, the majority would dictate, even though on the surface, it would appear that everyone should be allowed to smoke when and where they like. It is not allowed because it impacts the majority. Therefore, the smoker have to go somewhere else to smoke.

The same concept applies. When the action affects the majority in a way that they are not comfortable with, the democratic process allows for eliminating the action. Perhaps the government should enact a bill that creates designated Summum areas for this group to post their messages and share their beliefs.

Anonymous | 2:02 p.m. April 1, 2008

I think the test for us to usher in the Second Coming when we get to the point in society where we no longer mind other people's business.

KP | 2:10 p.m. April 1, 2008

What would Jesus do?

Charles | 2:10 p.m. April 1, 2008

To Hatuletoh: The posting of the Ten Commandments does not constitute the establishment of religion. Have you ever been inside the Supreme Court building or read the words of our Founders? Where is the tyranny here? The tyranny is from your side, the minority, who would control the moral majority with your political correctness by denying freedom of expression and the rights of a community to determine their own standards. Besides, only someone who denies his own conscience doesn't believe the Ten Commandments to be statements of right behavior. This is not rocket science -- no religion is being promoted, here.

Fred Vader | 2:58 p.m. April 1, 2008

Let's be honest for a moment...

The town claims that it is saying "no" because they don't want to get in a situation where they have to accept all or none, because then the park gets overcrowded with monuments, or their 10 commandments get shut out. Right?

If a different group was offering another 10 commandments display to put on the other side of the park, would they have said, "No. Don't want to get too crowded."?

My honest guess would be that they would have accepted the display.

Anonymous | 3:10 p.m. April 1, 2008

When people go back to keeping their religious notions private, we will experience heaven on earth.

Re: Fred Vader | 3:37 p.m. April 1, 2008

The citizens of Pleasant Grove are simply preserving their right to decide which monuments to display in their community park; whether any of those monuments have religious themes or not should be left up to them to decide. What "right" does some group from SLC have to decide which monuments Pleasant Grove should have in their park?

If a Jewish community has a monument in a public park with a depiction of the Talmud or the Star of David on it, will they now be forced to accept a Nazi monument with a cross on it?

Hatuletoh | 4:02 p.m. April 1, 2008

It sounds like all of you want to ammend the Constitution. That's fine--changing the Constitution is the deomcratic remedy when a majority of citizens disagree with the Constitution's language. Perhaps you could add a line that read "protection afforded in accordance with community standards", or something like that. In the meantime, the First Ammendment still reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor abridging freedom of speech." I don't personally think that fringe religious groups ought to have monuments in public parks, but the point is that no one--not the president; not Mike Huckabee; not any of us--have the authority to designate an individual's religious beliefs, or right to express them, less important that another's. Not even the majority has that right in this country, and thank God for it. Rally your troops to change the First Ammendment if it suits you, but do not be so deluded as to think that keeping out the "7 Amphrophisms" in favor The 10 Commandments is a victory for religion. It is just the opposite.

to Charles | 4:09 p.m. April 1, 2008

"The posting of the Ten Commandments does not constitute the establishment of religion." This is true. However, posting the Ten Commandments and excluding other religious monuments (e.g., Summum's Seven Aphorisms) DOES constitute establishing a religion, as the government is promoting one religion while rejecting others. The First Amendment expressly forbids this, which is why the government would have to allow any religious monument or ban them completely. (Note that this applies only to public land, private entities are not constrained in this manner.)

Anonymous | 4:31 p.m. April 1, 2008

I am convinced that conservative-types will be continuing to argue with themselves in the hereafter-wherever they find themselves.
They just can't seem to find a way to live-and-let-live, do they?
Always pushing something or another on the closest person to them.
I see this as one of society's primary mental illnesses.

RE: Anonymous | 4:58 p.m. April 1, 2008

Okay, how many times are you going to post the same comment? GET A LIFE!!!

Charles | 5:57 p.m. April 1, 2008

To "to Charles" @ 4:09 PM: The meaning of the word "religion" has evolved. The original intent of the First Amendment was not to exclude the expression of a belief in God. It was to prevent a certain church from controlling the government and vise versa. Laws should not deny communities the right to promote proven basic principles that contribute to a peaceful society. Furthermore, if I lived in a Muslim community, I would respect the majority's choice to display positive standards of behavior. This violates none of my rights.

easy to coerce | 6:04 p.m. April 1, 2008

Conservatives are so freaky about maintaining tradition (theirs of course) that they've shut their minds down completely about anything else.
It's no wonder they are so easy to manipulate.

Eric | 7:36 p.m. April 1, 2008

I hope that PG decides to allow the monument with the stipulation that it be maintained by the Summum group. No harm can come from the esoteric aphorisms. With that said, they have the right to decide what gets put in their parks. As it currently stands, PG has not made a law establishing a religion by having the Ten Commandments displayed. The Ten Commandments represent no one religion. And PG would not be prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Have they prohibted the Summum group from doing so? Is it part of the Summum group's tenets that their worship has to include placing monuments in parks? If it is we ought to be concerned. The Seven Aphorisms are unique to the Summum group and the Ten Commandments are not. So, if Pleasant Grove allows the monument that is their privilege and so is not accepting it.

Mark B | 7:35 p.m. April 1, 2008

Hatuletoh, Fred Vader and Mr. 4:09 are correct here. We're all under the same Constitution, which would prohibit treating different religions differently. If private groups offer religious tablets for public display, then towns, cities, states OR the federal government should be obliged to treat them all the same. Accept or reject them ALL.

Of course, this assumes an even playing field, which today's Supreme Court is not. Justice Scalia and fellow Roman Catholics (five out of the nine) could do legal contortions to find some offbeat criterium for saying "yes" to the Eagles (and the good folks of PG) and "no" to the upstart, no-name, probably unamerican, pinko slime that call themselves "Summum", no matter how much the two are alike.

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 8:04 p.m. April 1, 2008

If a city that has one monument is forced to take any that someone else wants to place, there is no reason that the Mormons who dominate the population of Pleasant Grove could not simply place all sorts of monuments all over the park that support LDS doctrines. There could be paving stones all over the park creating paths that quote entire chapters of the Book of Mormon, images of all of the Arnold Friberg Book of Mormon paintings, pictures of the LDS prophets, the words of LDS hymns, memorials to current and former missionaries and military service members, etc. Every boy scout wanting to get his Eagle rank could organize a hundred or so new "monuments" for placement in the park, made of cheap materials like brick and cement. That would be the proper response to the 10th Circuit's silly ruling. All the City Council would have to do would be to limit monument placement to bona fide residents of the City, a restriction that is facially neutral (and that might exclude Summum).

Anonymous | 8:33 p.m. April 1, 2008

Eric | 7:36 p.m. Apr. 1, 2008
The Ten Commandments represent no one religion.
Eric do you see the word GOD?
Our constitutions uses the word CREATER. I wonder why?
It is amazing that Jefferson and Adams in 1775 had more knowledge then the people that live to today. I guess it is prove that evolution is false, or in some people

Move Monuments somewhere | 9:06 p.m. April 1, 2008

my suggest is to have this Monumenst move to any Church Land who support it, leave Fed's land and still there therefore it will closed case and shut up with Summum Group and have peace for thier sake!!

it will be best way like one in Provo in past time that they had move 10 Commandments Mounmenst on Church Land which it is LDS Land. and everyone stop dabate about it! huh!!! Sound Great ?????

Deaf Guy

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

1 photo

Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News

This Ten Commandments monument in a Pleasant Grove park at 100 South and 100 East was donated 47 years ago by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The city has been fighting demands by the religious group Summum that it allow another monument in the park of the group's Seven Aphorisms.