Reader comments
New twist in tablets case

ADL | 8:18 a.m. June 25, 2008

I think the ADL also needs to go against some laws, since some are patterned after the 10 commandments.
Also anybody that has a "Jesus Fish" on their car since they are driving on public roads ... yea, just as rediculous.

Dear "ADL" | 9:09 a.m. June 25, 2008

So you STILL don't get it, after carefully reading the article?

The issue: Government's promotion of ONE religious belief, Christianity, above all others.

To think as you do, you had better start a drive to amend the US Constitution, to make Christianity a required belief....with penalties.

Gee, haven't we learned more than that, YET?

PS - name a government that owns a car with a "Jesus Fish" on it.

Which Ten | 9:39 a.m. June 25, 2008

Which Ten Commandments is on display?
The Jewish ones?
The Catholic ones?
Or the Protestant ones?

Comments continue below

Anti-Religion | 9:49 a.m. June 25, 2008

As usual, the anti-religion zealots will be out in force.

They aren't really concerned that on monument displaying the 10 Commandments in a public park somehow establishes religion, they just want to make this a completely secular/Godless society where the mention of God or faith in any public setting is strictly prohibited.

Dear "Anti-Religion" | 10:35 a.m. June 25, 2008

You are wrong on SO many levels...but it's a nice parrot of the far-right-wing's "talking points".

WHICH religion is permissible? Yours or mine?

Why does one religion's version of the Ten Commandments belong on government property, and not another religion's?

WE are the ones protecting ALL religion. Trying to make YOUR religion mandatory, is not why this country was established.

Randy | 11:05 a.m. June 25, 2008

Hopefully it's a way off, but I'm waiting for the day when the federal, state, & local government holiday for Christmas is deemed illegal, i.e., religious preference.

Rien | 11:16 a.m. June 25, 2008

"Dear 'Anti-Religion'": Actually Anti-Religion is not too far off the mark.

The idea of those fighting with you to "protect[] ALL religion" is to get us to the Horace Mann standard:

"When in doubt, leave it out."

Allowing public display of religion makes nothing "mandatory." I've lived in a foreign country where the dominant religion (Philippines, Catholic) was not my own. Though a democratic country that espouses US-style values, including religious liberty, they might at times cross the line when it comes to state sponsorship of religion. But it never hurt me or burdened my own freedom. It's just the reality of dealing with a cultural/religious majority different from your own.

Many people on your side really want "freedom from annoyance", not freedom of religion.

If the people really love freedom and liberty, there won't be a problem with freedom of religion (except we'll always have to live with the complainers, I imagine). But if people don't really want liberty--want comfort or freedom from annoyance or something else--then not even the courts will eventually be able to protect their rights.

COSMO | 11:23 a.m. June 25, 2008

Just keep tearing at the fabric of our nation, and when there is nothing left, but money and power to
hold it together, then it is too late. It will explode, just like Yugoslavia did.

momstamps | 11:40 a.m. June 25, 2008

I think the real issue is that a group of PG citizens from a PG organization donated the monument and the city accepted it back in the 1970's. The new monument is from a group of non-PG citizens from an organization with no apparent ties to PG or it's citizens. Imagine if PG had to open the park to monuments from whatever group wherever in the world wanted to send them one.

I find it interesting that whenever I read about this, the reports never state why the city denied the Summum Aphorisms. Was it on religious reasons or simply because it had nothing to do with PG?

History | 2:09 p.m. June 25, 2008

momstamps, Thank you for the insight. This piece of info lends to the thinking that the religious nature of proposed monument may be irrelevant.

A distinction that needs to be made: there is a huge difference between forcing one religion upon a nation or community, and celebrating the religious history of the nation or community. The PG community culture was clearly built upon Christian beliefs (along with most of Utah) and it would be fundamentally wrong to deny, change, or erase it from our culture meerly because it doesn't fall in line with everyone's beliefs.

Just my opinion here: in this case, the majority should rule, not the minority.

Richard G. | 3:08 p.m. June 25, 2008

As usual, a bunch of clueless Mormons "just don't get it."

Folks, you are free to practice your religion because the government doesn't endorse any religion.

Keep your religious beliefs off of taxpayer-paid property -- in Unpleasant Grove or elsewhere -- and we can all get along. But if you try forcing your religion into venues paid for with the help of my tax money, you're going to have a war on your hands.

Bull | 3:57 p.m. June 25, 2008

Momstamps: PG only came up with that rationale after they were sued.

Do you think for a moment that if the "PG Society of Athiests" wanted to donate a monument to PG with their viewpoint written on it that the PG leaders would act any differently?

No, this is about PG trying to preserve "their" way of thinking to the exclusion of all other viewpoints.

Religion and culture/history | 7:32 p.m. June 25, 2008

"History" hits the nail on the head.

First, there is a material difference between promoting religion and acknowledging the historical, cultural, and legal influence that a particular religious text has in a community. The ten commandments are a bedrock of western civilization.

Secondly, they are widely enough accepted that they represent basic values held by vast majority of the residents of Pleasant Grove.

Finally, their long standing placement in a public park does NOT "establish" any one religion over another, nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion by anyone. THAT is the language of the 1st amendment and the standard that ought to be applied. While Jefferson's language regarding a "wall of separation" contained in his letter to the Danbury congregation is useful for insights into his original intent, it is NOT the language that was ratified and the analogy he drew should NOT replace the actual language of the constitution in deciding these cases.

There is no doubt this alternative monument has been offered up for the SOLE purpose of forcing removing of the original monument. It ought to be rejected on those grounds alone.

Challenge! | 9:41 p.m. June 25, 2008

I want everyone, without cheating, from memory, to name all ten commandments. Of course we can never really trust the validity of a response to that question written here. But I would be willing to wager a very LARGE sum of money that of all the people writing in about how great and important it is to have the ten commandments in PG, and how they are the bedrock of western civilization, maybe 5% could recite all ten. And I think 5% is a bit high.

This isn't about the ten commandments. Be honest. This is about one religion, one theology, putting itself above all others.

susan smith | 9:14 a.m. July 12, 2008

I find it interesting the ADL would speak out about the issue of the separation of church and state. Afterall, we have the bogus Noahide Laws established in our Federal Statutes as an official state religion of the United States. Nobody has lifted a finger to try and challenge this ridiculous law. It has been on the books since 1991. The Noahide Laws are as bogus as Scientology. You can find it as Public Bill 102-14, signed into law by the first President Bush. FYI, the "Noahide Laws" are a fabrication straight from the Jewish Talmud, which in itself is is a false document. This one bill establishes the Talmudic based Jewish religion as the sole legal authority in the U.S., and ultimately declares Christianity and all other faiths to be idolatries and punished by beheading. Needless to say, Easter and Christmas are in the plans to be outlawed, according to the dictates of this Federal statute.

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

The Ten Commandments monument in a Pleasant Grove city park is now being criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as an example of a city showing preference to certain religious denominations.