Reader comments
Pleasant Grove religious case in top court today

Why does the LIBERAL Supreme Court think they have the right to rule on this matter? This is a democracy! What don't they understand?! If we can change the California constitution, we can also change the U.S. Constitution. Let democracy rule! Follow the prophet!

"...the courts ruled Pleasant Grove must accept the monument because, by accepting other monuments, the city had transformed the park into a public forum where free speech must be permitted."

That is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever heard. The fact that the government allows certain speech in public buildings, parks or other public spaces doesn't make it a public forum. The other monuments are the property of the City and became "government speech" when the city accepted them. If these courts are correct then any property that the City chooses to place in a public space makes it a public forum. That plaque on the side of the County Courthouse means that I get to place a plaque there too. The picture of the City Council in a municipal building means that it is a public forum and I get to place my picture beside theirs.

There's a difference between government speech and private speech which means that just because the government place monuments, pictures or other documents in public buildings, parks, etc does not mean that we as private individuals get the same forum.

The same holds true in reverse, public to private.

Those Summum agitators want special rights. Who do they think they are? They already have the same rights as every other group and can put up a monument to the LDS church, just the same as everyone else. Next, they will force us to marry them in OUR temple and teach it to OUR children. This is a DEMOCRACY and should be put up to a vote. Just what don't they understand? Their way of life makes me sick! Just read the Book of Mormon and follow the prophet!

I think the City is on shaky ground on this one. This park should be owned and maintained by a pioneer group, non gov't, in order to be this exclusive. I personally have no interest in reading any monument fromt this Summum group, but they may have a strong legal point about their right to post in a gov't owned public place. Good luck, city.

This is another case of liberal activist judges going against the will of the people! We settled this state, not that sicko Summum group. Let them go to California and build their false idols to worship there!

This is an interesting case. It may be more difficult for the city to maintain that the monuments are only there because of their historical significance, not religious significance, when it includes a Ten Commandments monument. However, it's laughable for Summum to claim that Pleasant Grove is subjecting their religion to the kind of religious persecution that early Mormons endured. There is no comparison there.

Don't you just love these liberal socialists?

A ruling against Pleasant Grove would definitely open a can of worms. A strict interpretation would mean that every time a city in Utah wants to put up a monument they have to express every point of view. Kinda takes away the point of a monument, doesn't it?

Well, it's all about love, right? The Summums love the monuments they love, so we should recognize their love because it's the highest possible reason for anything.

Now if only they could show us that their love actually produced something - a park, or a town, for example, then we could tell them that they were being ignorant and insensitive for wanting to actually decide what they might want to put there.

So a monument with the ten commandments becomes government speach because some pioneer donated it.
DSounds like the technicality written to get around church-state seperation just got the bluff called.
I have a stone copy of the devils creed carried by one of my pioneer ancestors. I guess that qualifies for display.

Demacracy - popular vote....no we have a Constitutional republic founded on Constitutional rights & Laws, not on public whim. The PG city government is not promoting a particular sect of religious expression but providing a setting for their citizens to "bask" in the memories of the areas history, with symbols associated to their history. The city will win this one and the Liberal appellate courts will be sent packing again for legislating from the bench. Prediction: City by 3.

Stop using mormonsim to perpetrate an ignorant viewpoint. You can't speak for the prophet and what he would say in this situation. The constitution is set up to allow judges to rule on the constitutionality of laws that are challenged. While the judges themselves are not elected, those who appoint them are, so that allows for accountability to the people. The system of checks and balances allows the people to amend the constitution in the case that the voice of the people doesn't agree with the judges ruling, as in the case of California Prop 8. However, "liberalism" (whatever that means)cannot be a blanket term that you use to slander viewpoints that you don't agree with. The judges are appointed to make legal (not moral) decisions regarding the constitutionality of laws. If you don't agree with their decisions, exercise your constitutional rights and amend the constitution, rather than labeling them "liberal."

Wow, the Religious cry about people not letting them put up their 10 commandments, but once soemone else wants their's up, they scream NO.
Follow the Prohpet; it's people like you that give religious zealots a bad name. This is a secular government. Keep your Jesus in your own imagination.
Proud I'm a Mormon; I have a strange feeling you're being ironic. You can't be for real.

dave4197,

"I think the City is on shaky ground on this one."

Actually, the City is on very firm ground and has precedence in its favor. The park acts as a public forum in the same sense that every other member of the public can access it. If one person can go to the park for a picnic so can another but if no one from the public can put a monument or other statute there without city approval no one can.

In this instance, that is where the line is drawn and the city has firm standing. The city chooses which monuments, and other displays to put in the park by a vote of its council, duly elected by its citizens. It doesn't have to give equal access to every possible monument (in the millions) by virtue of placing a single monument in the park.

That's where this group fails in its argument.

The only other argument is separation of Church and State but it has to be clear that the City endorses certain religion instead of simply recognizing its historical and cultural significance. The proposed monument doesn't meet this test and would violate the 1st amendment.

A Thought. Please do not say "when we settled this country"... you are forgetting that there were people here, who had settled the area, long before the Pioneers came in 18 whatever. The name for these folks is "Native Americans." Please, keep that thought as you fight over whether something belongs in a park, etc. etc. etc.

"Native Americans," remember the phrase and you might become more tolerant.

The constitution does not say anything about seperation of church and state. It has one sentence that is very straight forward and says that congress can not pass a law favoring one religion over another religion. Nothing more is ever said about religion in the constitution. Read it for yourself and quit allowing these liberals to lie and get away with it.

huh,

"So a monument with the ten commandments becomes government speach because some pioneer donated it."

Yes. The government took possession or control of the monument and it belongs to the government. It's important to bear in mind that the government does not have to accept every monument that is offered. Remove the issue of religion from the equation and ask does a statute of George Washington in a public park mean that every citizen has a right to place a statute of their choice in a public park?

"DSounds like the technicality written to get around church-state seperation just got the bluff called."

It's not a technicality. It's a basic premise that regulates public and private property. This is true of private malls as public forums as well.

"I have a stone copy of the devils creed carried by one of my pioneer ancestors. I guess that qualifies for display."

It does, and if the city council chooses to place it in a public park then it would be within its right to do so as long as it isn't unduly endorsing a religion. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 10 commandments can be a secular display.

I wonder if the previous monuments weren't there or origionally placed there if there would even be a desire to them place this Summum monument anyway? I think that these groups look for excuses to whine and cry that the other kids get what they want but when it really comes down to it. The Summums probably don't even care they are just trying to make a point and that is they cant come up with an origional idea or place to have a monument or even someone who would be willing to let them place a monument. Think about that. Why not put a monument where people actually want to see it where it will add value and appeal. Surprise that most of these people cant think beyond that....

these guys want to put up a liberal group monument in a park that has lots of LDS history?

Thats like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Mmmmm,

"Demacracy - popular vote....no we have a Constitutional republic founded on Constitutional rights & Laws, not on public whim."

The Founding Fathers were very clear about what they meant by a "republic." James Madison said:

"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority."

Thomas Jefferson said "[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."

"The city will win this one and the Liberal appellate courts will be sent packing again for legislating from the bench. Prediction: City by 3."

The Courts have been clear. That this isn't a simple issue. The Government does have a secular interest in recognizing history. The fact that a stone from the original Nauvoo Temple is a part of the display indicates that the park is a historical park which seeks to honor the historical founding of Utah. This group will loose.